I am not sure why you link all folks left of center as supporting this murderer. I don't link all conservatives with the KKK or the freaks at Westboro Baptist. I would go as far to say that most Americans would not favor late term abortions and that includes all dems and women.
WH: No mention of Jews on Holocaust Remembrance Day because others were killed too
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
I am not sure why you link all folks left of center as supporting this murderer. I don't link all conservatives with the KKK or the freaks at Westboro Baptist. I would go as far to say that most Americans would not favor late term abortions and that includes all dems and women.
Not Moe ....I don't for a minute think Trump is. However, I think he and Bannon recognizes that the alt-right were his earliest and most loyal supporters. I think he and Bannon (maybe all Bannon here) are throwing them a bone because he has been cozy with Israel and Netanyahu.
You have to have your head in the sand if you don't see the sad commentary behind the decision not to mention Jews. It has been a platform of the far right for some time now especially in Europe. Now it appears that platform has leaked to the US.
I don't know what Trump's beliefs are but his admin put out a Holocaust statement that doesn't mention Jews in breaking with recent presidents. Maybe it was just an oversight, surely that's it.
Except Hillary Clinton and the majority of the Democrat leadership.
I'm just pointing out the rank hypocrisy over some on the Left upset Trump didn't mention Jews in the Holocaust, and their near universal silence over the Holocaust of Gosnell, partial birth Abortion, or the dismembering and subsequent selling of human Baby body parts.
But there is never hypocrisy from the right..... I said this yesterday, one side only sees the hypocrisy from the other and rarely sees any from their side.
Hypocrisy exists on the Right no doubt. But when the Left calls out their outrage, they totally excuse themselves from the analysis.
You are blinded by your religion...Christian first, American second....be proud, but be prepared
I disagree. I called out Bush and Republicans over "no child left behind" instead of vouchers (which Bush ran on) Prescription Drug medications instead of Medicaid reform (which he also ran on)
And TARP...which was nothing more than Government funding/bailout of banking incompetence. Total hypocrisy, and while I wasn't posting here on the OT board back then, I most certainly thought they were total hypocrites on all of those and I think it's a major reason Republicans eventually lost their majorities in both Houses by 2008.
Go back to your doctor and tell him whatever drug he put you on is causing you to act like a fool.
No boom...Life first. It's the first inalienable right. You are blinded by your disbelief/skepticism of anything to do with our Creator.
News flash boom...it's self evident--wanna question the Constitution too?
YES EXACTLY...sort of like the republicans threatening the dems not to monkey with the confirmation process when they wouldn't even discuss Obama's nomination to the SCOTUS. But go ahead and make some excuse why this was different or acceptable.
No President in the past 80 some odd years has EVER submitted a nominee to the high court in the final year of his term in Office.
Name one.
President should have nominated a reasonable justice. If you dont have control of the senate it is a compromise.
Criticize TARP all you want but it saved the globe from depression. The markets were frozen. Something had to done. The problem wasn't TARP, it was the failure of the government to hold bank execs accountable for their involvement in the mess. Or Rating Agency Management. Or the government themselves or expanding the mandate of Freddie or Fannie.
Government mandates on those banks caused their irresponsible behavior making loans to folks they knew could not repay. They were facing Government sanctions unless they improved their loan portfolios to minorities and other "at risk" borrowers.
Study the Community reinvestment act and the trouble it caused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
Anything short of conservative wasn't reasonable I suppose.
Judge Garland, 63, a well-known figure in Washington legal circles who has drawn praise from members of both parties.......
Although I surely don't agree with his second amendment stance. But he wasn't even given the courtesy of a hearing.
I agree with this, but there was no way McConnell was going to allow a floor vote. Especially after the "Reid rule".
Were you also upset with how the Senate treated Reagan's nominee Robert Bork? He didn't get the courtesy from the Left you think Obama's nominee should have received.
Sure...you arrogant, self-righteous, come lately Christian.....creator can mean many things outside of your narrow minded, absolutist Christian view. Buddhism allows for the view of creation as being a form of karma, each human life is created as a result of ones karma...thus the "creation" is a form of reformation.
I believe my creator is energy unformed, unable to be labeled by my human mind.
Some atheists believe their creator is cosmic matter formed and evolved over time into the human form we know today.
I could go on...but the point is....the word creator was used to accentuate the point that our rights are NOT determined by any person, but rather by our existence in the world. It is no more an assertion of Christian values than the desire for no taxation without representation.
Oh, and I don't think that line comes from our constitution my very ignorant friend. It comes from the Declaration of Independence. The constitution has no mention of God (or creator). It is a secular document, so does that give me the right to throw your bs religious views out of our national direction? No.
I respect Christians as Americans. Even if Christians do not respect non-Christians as Americans...because I know more about what this beautiful nation was built to be....than you ever will.
I'm not sure why you went any farther. You answered your own question.
Holy Crap ATL......the mandates to FREDDIE AND FANNIE to expand the number and lower the quality of loans they bought had everything to do with that fiasco as well as the uninformed investors that bought private MBS. This is a right-led argument that has no basis.
This had zero to do with the CRA....zero. The CRA emphasizes that banking institutions fulfill their CRA obligations within the framework of safe and sound operation. I was an expert on CRA when I has a regulator before the crisis (2002-2005). I actually performed CRA exams....imagine that. There is not a single mandate, instruction, interpretation of that law that requires banks to lend to lend to people that can't repay. CRA encourages commercial banks and savings institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods. The CRA has nothing to due with lending to minorities unless they happen to be low to moderate income borrows residing or investing in low to moderate census tracts. This law was put in place to keep banks from pulling deposits from low to mod neighborhoods and lending to affluent neighborhood; hence community reinvestment.
In fact ATL, if the banks make bad CRA loans or risky investments, the regulators actually criticize them for it. IMO the CRA needs to be revamped before becoming obsolete.
Here is information taken from the wiki piece you linked:
In a 2003 research paper, economists at the Federal Reserve could not find clear evidence that the CRA increased lending and home ownership more in low income neighborhoods than in higher income ones. A 2008 Competitive Enterprise Institute study resulted in a similar finding.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission formed by the US Congress in 2009 to investigate the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, concluded "the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis".[
Liberals imploding on not being able to spin their ideology. Torontoeer will not be around for awhile. His rant last week blew up in his face. Liberals never learn.
So why was it needed? Why not just make loans based on the standard underwriting and financial verification and/or requirements that had been standard practice before the mandates from the CRA?
I don't deny the banks were victims of their own shoddy practices, but who told them to develop these new loan portfolios to then package them up as these fancy non collateralized packages of bad debts to resell to unsuspecting investors? Are you saying they were under no Government pressure to make these bad loans?
Yep. To a ridiculous level that makes me literally sick (because you claim you are not, while exclaiming your opinions are absolute and "of god")
CRA had its roots in the 70's when banks weren't making loans in low to moderate income areas (I'd guess this coincides with white flight from the cities but that is a guess). Banks were not lending to low income folks who remained behind at all. Banks actually drew lines around areas of cities that they wouldn't even think about lending to. (hence the term red-lining for CRA purposes)
I am not sure of the history but I believe under Clinton and expanded under W was the mandate for Freddie and Fannie (Government Sponsored Entities) to relax their underwriting standards and purchase loans with lower standards to allow low to mod borrowers and minority borrows to buy houses. As usual, good intentions went bad and the program spawned junk. Coinciding with this, especially when values went nuts, was the growth of private mortgage backed securities. Not only were government agencies selling MBS but so were private sellers (some large banks). In addition, many banks were buying these securities to hold due to the yield and relative safety, or so they thought. When home values stopped rising, the market crashed on everyone.
Go back and read your post to me boom, and then come back and explain to me how you are NOT what you accuse me of being?
You paint a largely correct scenario of the cause/effect of the housing collapse...no argument with you there. But why do you excuse the Government's role in this chronology?
Or are you?
Liberals imploding on not being able to spin their ideology. Torontoeer will not be around for awhile. His rant last week blew up in his face. Liberals never learn.
So the next time some right wing American whacko implodes and kills a bunch of Americans, we should paint on conservatives the same? Remind you of your defense of the law-abiding right?
Right-wing militants who, since 2002, have killed more people in the United States than jihadis have. In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead. These Americans thrive on hate and conspiracy theories, many fed to them by politicians and commentators who blithely blather about government concentration camps and impending martial law and plans to seize guns and other dystopian gibberish, apparently unaware there are people listening who don’t know it’s all lies. These extremists turn to violence—against minorities, non-Christians, abortion providers, government officials—in what they believe is a fight to save America. And that potential for violence is escalating every day. (taken from what surely is a left propaganda piece but I referenced for the fact that alt-rights kill also.
I am not excusing government's role. It was the mandate of both Clinton and W to relax lending standards at Freddie and Fannie. As long as somebody was willi to buy the junk, it was originated.
It just wasn't CRA.
I'd agree with this. My point is despite it's good intentions, the CRA was an unmitigated disaster and it left taxpayers with a huge tab to bail out the banks they would not otherwise have incurred if they were left to operate based on sound business lending practices.
I thought that the omission was on purpose too, glad you agree. If the admin wants to put out a statement about the Holocaust and not mention Jews, well that's their business but try not to act too outraged when they get negative press over it. I'm not real sure why you want to defend them over this. Do you think that the Holocaust happened?
I'm not surprised that you can't tell a message board poster from a media journalist, good luck on figuring out the difference between the two. The thread was started with a link to some negative press which may help you to recognize the difference.
THE CRA HAD LITTLE TO NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRISIS. Holy crap it takes a special kind of person to argue an unsubstantiated point with a person who actually worked in the industry and enforced the law.,
You are talking to a person who understands the law. I enforced the law. Banks were not encouraged to make substandard loans.....ever. They get CRA credit for any lending in these areas. I bet you didn't know that a loan to build a shopping center or revitalize an old factory or warehouse is much of what you see in bank's CRA portfolios vs residential mortgage loans. Banks will invest in pools or grants that help low to mod borrowers There may have been investments in their portfolios that may not have been made if not for an attempt to earn CRA credit. I'll give you that but that was/is a small portion of what most banks do. I can explain those too if you want me to.
You are basically calling me a liar. I have deep subject matter expertise of the workings of this law and you basically said I know nothing. I am not providing an opinion but the fact of the law. If you want to point a finger, look at Slick Willy and W for their policies of home ownership for everyone....completely outside of CRA.
Interestingly when I google CRA causing the recession, all the articles from right-leaning sources. Read the joint congressional study. It is a bipartisan report on the topic.