Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11192499 -

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/03/community-reinvestment-act-mortgages-housing-opinions-contributors-peter-schweizer.html

Quote:
For all the talk of unsold condos in Miami and foreclosed McMansions in California, the epicenters of the mortgage crisis are inner-city urban areas--precisely those areas where the CRA was most applicable. As the Boston Federal Reserve put it in a massive 2008 study, "In the current housing crisis foreclosures are highly concentrated in [urban] minority neighborhoods." The study found that borrowers in these areas were seven times more likely to be foreclosed on than the general population. Analysis by the Pew Research Center and another by The New York Times found that mortgage holders in these areas had foreclosure rates four times higher than the national average.

In short, the CRA is compelling banks to make trillions in loans to individuals who have poor credit and who often can't or won't make their payments.


Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
If you want to pick tomatoes and/or clean people's toilets, be my guest.  I'm sure you'd have no problem finding such a job.  It's not nearly as easy for illegals to get other types of American jobs as you seem to think.


The construction industry is loaded with them.  That's what keeps wages down for Americans.  It also keeps costs down for consumers but fuck 'em, so would slavery.
I should hope it would be impossible for them to get any jobs


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Therian]
    #11193189 -

Therian said:
For saying the speech was all over the internet which you apparently viewed, you seem to have an extremely selective memory. And yes the next six paragraphs were relevant.


Your posts are irrelevant unless you can show that Reich said we shouldn't hire white males.

Therian said:
Really, all they can do is pick fruit and clean toilets? Who's the fucking racist now?


Did I say that's all they can do?  I said it's very difficult for them to get other jobs.

Therian said:
There are also a lot of factory and production jobs taken up by illegals. Have you not seen the after effects of the ICE raids. After the illegals were deported there were lines around a business of Americans applying to fill the newly vacant positions.


Thank you, you just supported my previous point!

Therian said:
Here is an excerpt from the speech that in your words never happened. The speech and corresponding commentary can be found at.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/22/video-no-stimulus-money-for-white-males/

I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers.    I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the long term unemployed minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.


Exactly.  He said that white males shouldn't be the only ones getting the stimulus jobs.

Therian said:
Everyone should have equal access to the jobs created by this stimulus plan.


Agreed, and that's what Reich wants to make sure happens.  Please read what someone actually says, not what you want to believe they said.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11195897 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Mr.Al said:
It was not a "free market in action".


Giving risky loans to the middle and upper class was NOT mandated by the Government!  That is something banks chose to do on their own.

Mr.Al said:
Nothing to say about Bernanke, huh?


For the third time, I said
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yes, interst rates were set too low.


What else do you want me to say?




:hulk:  You aren't looking at the moral hazard created by the artificially low interest rates.  Do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a model of free market lenders?  The entire mortgage industry was effected by the artificially low interest rates, that's what sent home valuations to the fucking moon.

Central banking and central economic planning created that mess and only a damn ostrich wouldn't be able to see that.


Bernanke has been dead wrong for years.  About almost everything he has been wrong.  Yet you still support central economic planning?


What's your definition of insanitY?


You also don't see that when fractional reserve banking has the safety net of a central bank that will bail them out and reward bad decisions of course you will see systematic problems throughout the banking industry.

If there is no fucking risk for stupid business decisions people make lots of stupid business decisions.

How fucking hard is it to see that this is what you should expect with a central bank?


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11197941 -

Mr.Al said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Giving risky loans to the middle and upper class was NOT mandated by the Government!  That is something banks chose to do on their own.


:hulk:  You aren't looking at the moral hazard created by the artificially low interest rates.  Do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a model of free market lenders?  The entire mortgage industry was effected by the artificially low interest rates, that's what sent home valuations to the fucking moon.


Agreed that was part of the problem.  The other part was banks giving out loans to anyone that wanted one, whether they were poor or not, and whether they could afford it or not.  Why do you choose to ingore that?

Mr.Al said:
You also don't see that when fractional reserve banking has the safety net of a central bank that will bail them out and reward bad decisions of course you will see systematic problems throughout the banking industry.

If there is no fucking risk for stupid business decisions people make lots of stupid business decisions.

How fucking hard is it to see that this is what you should expect with a central bank?


The banking regulations need to be put back in place that were removed during the last 10 years.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11199056 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Mr.Al said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Giving risky loans to the middle and upper class was NOT mandated by the Government!  That is something banks chose to do on their own.


:hulk:  You aren't looking at the moral hazard created by the artificially low interest rates.  Do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a model of free market lenders?  The entire mortgage industry was effected by the artificially low interest rates, that's what sent home valuations to the fucking moon.


Agreed that was part of the problem.  The other part was banks giving out loans to anyone that wanted one, whether they were poor or not, and whether they could afford it or not.  Why do you choose to ingore that?

Mr.Al said:
You also don't see that when fractional reserve banking has the safety net of a central bank that will bail them out and reward bad decisions of course you will see systematic problems throughout the banking industry.

If there is no fucking risk for stupid business decisions people make lots of stupid business decisions.

How fucking hard is it to see that this is what you should expect with a central bank?


The banking regulations need to be put back in place that were removed during the last 10 years.











I'll make this real simple.  If interest rates are artificially low, then there will be lots of lending and very little saving. 

The central bank created the moral hazard of easy money through artificially low interest rates.  It set the stage for the easy money that was lent out through the fractional reserve banks.


Expecting fractional reserve banks to exercise lending restraint when there are laws in place telling them they have to make loans to people who can't afford it doesn't make sense.  Given that the federal reserve bails out the fractional reserve banking system when they fuck up there is no means of weeding out banks that make too many risky loans.


Can you see that it is central banks and central economic planning (both which are key tenets of John Maynard Keynes' "economics") that cause these systemic economic problems.

Keynesians like to shift blame to a non-existent free market because they would rather not look at their own practices as being at fault.

I am not a fan of fractional reserve banking and inflation of the money supply.  I do realize that fractional reserve banking would not be anywhere near as problematic if it were not propped up by a central bank that sets up the moral hazard of endlessly postponing market correction until collapse occurs!



What makes you think regulations are beneficial:

http://mises.org/story/3757


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (10/07/09 08:32 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11199452 -

Quote:
Exactly.  He said that white males shouldn't be the only ones getting the stimulus jobs

.

No, he said criteria can be set so the money does go to others. So what is this criteria and who are the others. Rules can be set so the money can go to minorities. Apparently you don't understand how bidding for federal contracts works. I already explained it.

You CANNOT bid unless you meet minority hiring quotas!! It is impossible for whites to get all the jobs.

Women and minorities are ALREADY given preferences when bidding on these contracts.

Women and minorities are ALREADY given "set aside" contracts which only they can apply for.  Can you imagine if someone advertised that there were job openings but then stated Jews, Gays, blacks, and women need not apply, these jobs are only for Caucasians. Yes, whites have paid to have the work done but they are unable to provide the services BECAUSE THEY ARE WHITE.

I've have a novel concept on which type of criteria should be applied, how about those whose qualifications best match the prerequisite knowledge, skills, or abilities, get the jobs. The minority and woman aspect has already been taken care of due to quotas. Yet this asshole wants to enact even more criteria that would make it more prohibitive for a white person to acquire employment because they are white.

Poverty? There are three times as many whites living at or below the poverty level than blacks. Then numerically speaking perhaps minorities should be excluded from bidding. Criteria can be set to keep the race with the greatest number of individuals living in poverty working.
[
Therian said:
Everyone should have equal access to the jobs created by this stimulus plan.


Agreed, and that's what Reich wants to make sure happens.  .


Tell me how it is that for many contracts if one is white they have NO ACCESS to the jobs. Legally they CANNOT even apply. What do you not understand about the words equal access? And now he wants to enact "criteria" which precludes others from access to jobs based on their race. I thought hiring practices that discriminated based on race was illegal. Apparently it is only illegal if it is done to a minority. Tell me how is this fair? He doesn't want equality he want even more preferential treatment given to a select group of individuals.

Whites are underrepresented in the NBA. Perhaps we should come up with "criteria" which would enable them to compete. Perhaps we can lower the net to 6 feet for the whites. We could make the three point line about 10 feet closer to the net, and give them 5 seconds of unobstructed time to make a shot without the defense actually defending them, and do away with the double dribble rule for whites only. Then we can call this fair as we are only giving them equal access as you put it. Don't allow them to compete on a level field, that just wouldn't be right. They shouldn't have to play by the same rules either, as that would be unfair to the whites. Why aren't there quotas in basketball?

If it is so difficult for illegals to find work, then tell me why there are 30 million of them in this country? All they have to do is sit in a parking lot and contractors pick THEM up, no taxes paid, no questions asked.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11199505 -

Mr.Al said:
Expecting fractional reserve banks to exercise lending restraint when there are laws in place telling them they have to make loans to people who can't afford it doesn't make sense.


You keep saying this as if you don't realize that banks were giving  subprime loans to people they weren't required to make these loans to.

Mr.Al said:
I do realize that fractional reserve banking would not be anywhere near as problematic if it were not propped up by a central bank that sets up the moral hazard of endlessly postponing market correction until collapse occurs!

What makes you think regulations are beneficial?


Here's a nice article summarizing the housing crisis:

The Conservative Origins of the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis

I'm sure you're not interested in reading it due to the title, but the last section is called "And It All Started with Deregulation"


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11199900 -

From your article:

Quote:
"It's very disappointing," said Michael Shea, executive director of ACORN HousingExtortion, a national group that provides homeownership counseling for low-income consumers (me. Some counseling they did, telling people to take out adjustable rate mortgages they couldn't repay.  Also how to import child whores for brothels.).  "Wall Street has made billions and now they're hardly paying anything at all" for their role in the sub-prime crisis.  (Really?  They've lost billions because bums aren't paying off their loans.  Do you know who really aren't paying?  The people who borrowed the money.)

Make no mistake -- it is a crisis. Since 1998, more than 7 million borrowers bought homes with sub-prime loans. One million of those homeowners have already defaulted on their loans The crisis is likely to get worse. Financial analysts predict that at least a quarter of these people -- over 2 million families -- will default and face the financial pain and psychological grief of losing their homes over the next few years.


Their homes?  Why are they their homes when they never paid for them?  I have asked this before and I will ask it yet again.  If the bums who borrowed the money had paid back their loans would there be a crisis?  Answer, "no".  In fact, the answer is actually, "FUCK NO".  For a saner analysis of what went wrong and how Obama is continuing down the same stupid path only faster see this:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/03/community-reinvestment-act-mortgages-housing-opinions-contributors-peter-schweizer.html


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11200773 -

zappaisgod said:
From your article:

Quote:
"It's very disappointing," said Michael Shea, executive director of ACORN HousingExtortion, a national group that provides homeownership counseling for low-income consumers (me. Some counseling they did, telling people to take out adjustable rate mortgages they couldn't repay.  Also how to import child whores for brothels.).  "Wall Street has made billions and now they're hardly paying anything at all" for their role in the sub-prime crisis.  (Really?  They've lost billions because bums aren't paying off their loans.  Do you know who really aren't paying?  The people who borrowed the money.)

Make no mistake -- it is a crisis. Since 1998, more than 7 million borrowers bought homes with sub-prime loans. One million of those homeowners have already defaulted on their loans The crisis is likely to get worse. Financial analysts predict that at least a quarter of these people -- over 2 million families -- will default and face the financial pain and psychological grief of losing their homes over the next few years.



Oooh, ACORN was mentioned!  Gosh golly, that means the whole article is invalid, because it was discovered that ACORN hired a few idiots.  Why doesn't Blackwater get the same critisism when it was discovered they hired idiots as well?

zappaisgod said:
Their homes?  Why are they their homes when they never paid for them?  I have asked this before and I will ask it yet again.  If the bums who borrowed the money had paid back their loans would there be a crisis?  Answer, "no".  In fact, the answer is actually, "FUCK NO".


And I'll ask the following question:  "If bankers hadn't loaned money to people they knew couldn't repay the loans, would there be a crisis?  Answer "no".  In fact, the answer is actually, "FUCK NO".

zappaisgod said:
For a saner analysis of what went wrong and how Obama is continuing down the same stupid path only faster see this:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/03/community-reinvestment-act-mortgages-housing-opinions-contributors-peter-schweizer.html


That article begins by assuming CRA caused the mortgage crisis, even though it's been pointed out time and time again that CRA existed since the 70's, and it was never a problem.  The problem began when banks decided to expand subprime loans to anyone and everyone.  The Government didn't require them to do this!


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11200956 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
From your article:

Quote:
"It's very disappointing," said Michael Shea, executive director of ACORN HousingExtortion, a national group that provides homeownership counseling for low-income consumers (me. Some counseling they did, telling people to take out adjustable rate mortgages they couldn't repay.  Also how to import child whores for brothels.).  "Wall Street has made billions and now they're hardly paying anything at all" for their role in the sub-prime crisis.  (Really?  They've lost billions because bums aren't paying off their loans.  Do you know who really aren't paying?  The people who borrowed the money.)

Make no mistake -- it is a crisis. Since 1998, more than 7 million borrowers bought homes with sub-prime loans. One million of those homeowners have already defaulted on their loans The crisis is likely to get worse. Financial analysts predict that at least a quarter of these people -- over 2 million families -- will default and face the financial pain and psychological grief of losing their homes over the next few years.



Oooh, ACORN was mentioned!  Gosh golly, that means the whole article is invalid, because it was discovered that ACORN hired a few idiots.  Why doesn't Blackwater get the same critisism when it was discovered they hired idiots as well?


They didn't?  I seem to recall them getting ripped pretty good.  ACORN did not "hire a few idiots", they are a criminal enterprise of extortionists and vote fixers.  Nor was ACORN "mentioned".  They were cited as experts.  LOL.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Their homes?  Why are they their homes when they never paid for them?  I have asked this before and I will ask it yet again.  If the bums who borrowed the money had paid back their loans would there be a crisis?  Answer, "no".  In fact, the answer is actually, "FUCK NO".


And I'll ask the following question:  "If bankers hadn't loaned money to people they knew couldn't repay the loans, would there be a crisis?  Answer "no".  In fact, the answer is actually, "FUCK NO".


This is priceless.  Blame the victim.  They lost the most money of anyone.  Do you think they deliberately loaned money to people they knew couldn't pay it back?  Because now you are verging on annapurna twilight zone lunacy.  Dude, when there is a loan and one party doesn't pay the loan back there is only one party at fault.  The borrower.  Nobody forced them to take the loan.  As opposed to the lenders who in very many cases were forced to lend.  Sometimes by the self same extortionate organization that goes by the acronym ACORN.  Loan counselors.  LOL.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
For a saner analysis of what went wrong and how Obama is continuing down the same stupid path only faster see this:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/03/community-reinvestment-act-mortgages-housing-opinions-contributors-peter-schweizer.html


That article begins by assuming CRA caused the mortgage crisis, even though it's been pointed out time and time again that CRA existed since the 70's, and it was never a problem.  The problem began when banks decided to expand subprime loans to anyone and everyone.  The Government didn't require them to do this!


Oh no?  Perhaps you might want to actually read the article.  You also might want to read up on lawsuits filed by ACORN to compel lending in shitty neighborhoods.  All in the name of Affirmative Action.  Bush was naive.  He should have known that bums are always bums regardless of whether you do them a favor of lending them money.  They don't pay it back.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11202736 -

zappaisgod said:
ACORN did not "hire a few idiots", they are a criminal enterprise of extortionists and vote fixers.  Nor was ACORN "mentioned".  They were cited as experts.  LOL.


Apparently you know very little about ACORN other than what's on Faux News.  They actually do a lot of work with low income housing, and as such know a hell of a lot more than most.  Yes, they had some douchebags working for them.  No, they have not been found guilty of any criminal offense.  You may not like what they do, just like you don't like raising taxes, but guess what?  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's criminal!

zappaisgod said:
This is priceless.  Blame the victim.  They lost the most money of anyone.  Do you think they deliberately loaned money to people they knew couldn't pay it back?


Of course.  Why do you think they repackaged the loans and sold them off?  If the loans were good, the banks would have held on to them.  Anyone that bought the repackaged loans was scammed.

zappaisgod said:
Dude, when there is a loan and one party doesn't pay the loan back there is only one party at fault.  The borrower.


Not if the lender doesn't even verify the borrower's income!  But why would the lenders care if they are just going to sell their risky loans anyway?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11204219 -

Falcon writes:

Quote:
But why would the lenders care if they are just going to sell their risky loans anyway?


Exactly. You just proved the point being made by your opponents - that this entire mess is due to absurd government policy, not to greedy Capitalists or lack of regulation.

If you are going to sell risky loans, clearly you need a buyer. And who was the ultimate buyer? Why... government, in the guise of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. 




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Phred]
    #11204957 -

Fair enough.  The Government is at fault for not having regulations in place that would have prevented risky loans from being repackaged and resold to buyers with artificially inflated AAA ratings.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11206465 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
ACORN did not "hire a few idiots", they are a criminal enterprise of extortionists and vote fixers.  Nor was ACORN "mentioned".  They were cited as experts.  LOL.


Apparently you know very little about ACORN other than what's on Faux News.  They actually do a lot of work with low income housing, and as such know a hell of a lot more than most.  Yes, they had some douchebags working for them.  No, they have not been found guilty of any criminal offense.  You may not like what they do, just like you don't like raising taxes, but guess what?  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's criminal!


I don't watch TV news.  Sorry to burst your little prejudiced bubble.  Yeah, they do a lot of work with low income housing.  They sue banks to make loans to bums who don't pay them back.  ACORN also violates statutes restricting political activities by charities.  Two people with almost no money got 5 ACORN offices to assist them in what they said were illegal activities.  That is not a few rotten apples.  That is pervasive. 
Quote:
 

zappaisgod said:
This is priceless.  Blame the victim.  They lost the most money of anyone.  Do you think they deliberately loaned money to people they knew couldn't pay it back?


Of course.  Why do you think they repackaged the loans and sold them off?  If the loans were good, the banks would have held on to them.  Anyone that bought the repackaged loans was scammed.


They sold lots of good loans, too.  And who bought those loans?  Other banks plus Fannie and Freddie.  Can we get rid of the FM twins now?  No, Obama is expanding them to offer refinancing to people who already aren't paying their loans back.  The same idiots who bought bad loans are still in charge of buying more bad loan paper.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Dude, when there is a loan and one party doesn't pay the loan back there is only one party at fault.  The borrower.


Not if the lender doesn't even verify the borrower's income!  But why would the lenders care if they are just going to sell their risky loans anyway?


Let me get this straight.  Some asshole applies for a loan he can't realistically pay back.  He gets the loan from a sucker who then packages that shit loan with other good loans and sells it to another sucker.  This happens a few times until the asshole who got the loan no longer makes payments.  The end holder is the victim, the middle suckers are just lucky but the asshole douchebag in all this is still the cocksucker who borrowed money and doesn't pay it back.  And you think the suckers are the crooks?  No, the crook is always the guy who gets the money, not the guy who loses it.  In this case, it is the bad borrower.

Do you know an organization that helped people with shit credit and secret income get loans?  I do.  It's called ACORN.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11206624 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Fair enough.  The Government is at fault for not having regulations in place that would have prevented risky loans from being repackaged and resold to buyers with artificially inflated AAA ratings.



How about take away the fractional reserve banks' safety net and watch them show some real fiscal restraint in lending?

The government has fucked up the housing market severely in America, causing the economy to nosedive...

And yet you still think government is the solution?


I have to ask you again...

What's your definition of insanity?


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (10/08/09 09:41 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11206934 -

Mr.Al said:
The government has fucked up the housing market severely in America, causing the economy to nosedive...

And yet you still think government is the solution?


I have to ask you again...

What's your definition of insanity?


The housing market was fucked because Governmental regulations were removed.  Instanity would be not to repair the damage done by not restoring the regulations.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11206976 -

zappaisgod said:
Sorry to burst your little prejudiced bubble.  Yeah, they do a lot of work with low income housing.  They sue banks to make loans to bums who don't pay them back.  ACORN also violates statutes restricting political activities by charities.  Two people with almost no money got 5 ACORN offices to assist them in what they said were illegal activities.  That is not a few rotten apples.  That is pervasive.


If you think that is ACORN policy I would suggest finding the ACORN training or ACORN guidelines that say workers are to assist with illegal activity.  If you find it, I'll agree with you.  ACORN itself has never been found guilty of anything.  I agree what some workers did was wrong.  By the way, there IS new training being done within ACORN to help prevent that type of activity from happening again.

zappaisgod said:
Let me get this straight.  Some asshole applies for a loan he can't realistically pay back.  He gets the loan from a sucker who then packages that shit loan with other good loans and sells it to another sucker.  This happens a few times until the asshole who got the loan no longer makes payments.  The end holder is the victim, the middle suckers are just lucky but the asshole douchebag in all this is still the cocksucker who borrowed money and doesn't pay it back.  And you think the suckers are the crooks?  No, the crook is always the guy who gets the money, not the guy who loses it.  In this case, it is the bad borrower.


You forgot the loan officer who didn't check if the loan could be repaid.  And the security rating officer who graded the repackaged loan "AAA".


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11207512 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
Sorry to burst your little prejudiced bubble.  Yeah, they do a lot of work with low income housing.  They sue banks to make loans to bums who don't pay them back.  ACORN also violates statutes restricting political activities by charities.  Two people with almost no money got 5 ACORN offices to assist them in what they said were illegal activities.  That is not a few rotten apples.  That is pervasive.


If you think that is ACORN policy I would suggest finding the ACORN training or ACORN guidelines that say workers are to assist with illegal activity.  If you find it, I'll agree with you.  ACORN itself has never been found guilty of anything.  I agree what some workers did was wrong.  By the way, there IS new training being done within ACORN to help prevent that type of activity from happening again.


I love that, "new training".  Why would they need new training?  Shouldn't the old training have included certain basics like, "don't facilitate illegal activity"?  I'm guessing the new training consists of how to spot hidden cameras.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Let me get this straight.  Some asshole applies for a loan he can't realistically pay back.  He gets the loan from a sucker who then packages that shit loan with other good loans and sells it to another sucker.  This happens a few times until the asshole who got the loan no longer makes payments.  The end holder is the victim, the middle suckers are just lucky but the asshole douchebag in all this is still the cocksucker who borrowed money and doesn't pay it back.  And you think the suckers are the crooks?  No, the crook is always the guy who gets the money, not the guy who loses it.  In this case, it is the bad borrower.


You forgot the loan officer who didn't check if the loan could be repaid.  And the security rating officer who graded the repackaged loan "AAA".


Do you mean the loan officer at the bank that was just sued by ACORN for not making enough loans to purchase houses in historically weak performing neighborhoods? 

Security rating officer?  What's that?  I know there are security rating agencies.  Maybe if they are unreliable they should just go away.  What a concept!!!

Now, back to the asshole who caused all the trouble in the first place.  The bum with eyes too big for his wallet.  What a fucking thief.  Anybody who borrows anything and doesn't pay it back is a fucking asshole who screws everybody else.  Everybody.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11208765 -

zappaisgod said:
I love that, "new training".  Why would they need new training?  Shouldn't the old training have included certain basics like, "don't facilitate illegal activity"?  I'm guessing the new training consists of how to spot hidden cameras.


You seriously think employers need to train employees not to participate in illegal activities?  And in the same post you think "bums" are smart enough to know how big a loan they can afford, even if banks offer variable interest rates that change to unknown amounts at sometime in the future?

zappaisgod said:
Now, back to the asshole who caused all the trouble in the first place.  The bum with eyes too big for his wallet.  What a fucking thief.  Anybody who borrows anything and doesn't pay it back is a fucking asshole who screws everybody else.  Everybody.


I'm not arguing with that point.  I'm arguing it's equally the bank's fault, if not more.  Banks once cared what borrowers could afford.  That went away during the housing bubble.  Why wouldn't a bum take a mansion if the bank offers it to him?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11209823 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
I love that, "new training".  Why would they need new training?  Shouldn't the old training have included certain basics like, "don't facilitate illegal activity"?  I'm guessing the new training consists of how to spot hidden cameras.


You seriously think employers need to train employees not to participate in illegal activities?  And in the same post you think "bums" are smart enough to know how big a loan they can afford, even if banks offer variable interest rates that change to unknown amounts at sometime in the future?


You seem stunningly naive sometimes.  First question you should ever ask is Qui Bono?  Who benefits.  Regarding bums and rate gambles I have this ti say.  If you lose, you lose.  Vegas is a harsh mistress but I think you should have the right to dance with her.  It is a concept called the dignity of risk.  Remove the risk you remove the dignity.

And do I think ACORN needs to train their employees not to do illegal shit?  No, they need to stop training their employees to do illegal shit.  I am sure there will be a small handful here who understand what I just wrote.
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Now, back to the asshole who caused all the trouble in the first place.  The bum with eyes too big for his wallet.  What a fucking thief.  Anybody who borrows anything and doesn't pay it back is a fucking asshole who screws everybody else.  Everybody.


I'm not arguing with that point.  I'm arguing it's equally the bank's fault, if not more.  Banks once cared what borrowers could afford.  That went away during the housing bubble.  Why wouldn't a bum take a mansion if the bank offers it to him?


It is not equally the banks fault if they are operating under the threat of incessant taxpayer funded lawsuits to lend to bums.  You also don't bother arguing that the bums are victims anymore either.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Government
( 1 2 all )		 DailyPot 4,274 33 01/18/14 11:44 AM
by Echro
* TV Marti: shining example of government wastefullness Anonymous 360 1 06/18/03 08:44 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* paper money as currency?Inflation? stock HOW?? fake economy?
( 1 2 all )		 kaiowas 3,145 22 08/26/03 08:37 AM
by Anonymous
* Do you "like" the US government?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 trendalM 3,352 63 07/22/04 06:36 PM
by Evolving
* Federal Reserve Questions... RonoS 1,716 16 09/19/02 07:32 AM
by Anonymous
* Must Read: History Of The Federal Reserve FrankieJustTrypt 2,025 17 02/15/04 06:48 AM
by Phred
* Government Hits $6.4 Trillion Debt Limit
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 2,759 23 02/26/03 09:22 AM
by pattern
* The Alliance and Coalition Sue Government silversoul7 704 3 02/18/04 02:31 PM
by Strumpling

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
16,886 topic views. 2 members, 138 guests and 59 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.