Oops, how embarrassing and ironic that I made a spelling error in my last sentence.
|
Oops, how embarrassing and ironic that I made a spelling error in my last sentence.
I fail to understand it either.Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
Perspective is always a difficult thing to understand. Here in Australia the level of tax doesn't seem that high and yet we were told only recently we are among the highest taxed people on Earth. So I guess the system works and the maximum fleece is obtained with the minimum of bleeting, where as across the big pond the opposite appears to be true, the fleece is short and the sheep bleet inceasantly.
Perhaps on this side of the pond we the sheep haven't resigned ourselves to serfdom .
Gee, YOU pay stupid high taxes so anyone else in the world that doesn't think they should as well are being unreasonible?Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
I don't see the left handing over their fortunes to the covernment... or are the real hypocrites really the lefties.
But then... I see just how robust that wonderful European Economy is with those crippling taxes... as well as the unemployment numbers over the last several decades.
The only fools are those that think they are entitled to take what someone else has earned so they can spend it on the lazy who can't be bothered to take the effort.
The rich earned that money... and what reasonible concept of reality are the lazy entitiled to take what they didn't earn from those who did. And why is the government taking it any different that some thug on the street doing it.
Both steal the earnings off someone to give it to someone who didn't earn it because they felt entitled to it.
The ONLY difference is one uses a physical weapon.
Don't believe what Tut tells you, there are no serfs here, there are certainly no monarchs but more than enough queens. The spirit of this nation is a fair go and that includes each paying their fair share, whereas your low taxes ensure that only half pay and half starveQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
There are very few people here actually "starving".
Poor people that have Cell phones, Cars, Cable TV, and game systems along with Color TV's, and Microwaves... can afford food. Particularly with food stamps so many get.
The poor might actually die of starvation in third world countries... but they don't here.
The percentages of the "so called" starving poor suffering obesity or even morbid obesity will show lack of sufficient nutrition is not a problem they suffer from.
Who determines what a fair share is ? There are some who believe in "liberty" and some who believe in the "general will " .You call the general will fair . I don't .Your philosophy comes from the French 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man with the premise that "The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation"..."Law is the expression of the general will."Quote:
The spirit of this nation is a fair go and that includes each paying their fair share,
Mine is more in tune with John Adams authored 'Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts'... "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." Governments are created to secure these rights.
Under our system it's not up to the general will to determine fairness. Everyone is free to pursue their prosperity .
At the end of our revolution we did not expropriate the wealth of the rich for the common good or for fairness .We did not nationalize other peoples property .
The French did and the result was the Reign of Terror and ultimately the Napoleon dictatorship.
If the government is we the people, then the people can demand change. Isn't that why we vote? A weak government is a weak people, where individuals that can, will take that weakness to rob us blind. And they did. Have been for a while. To say that's not the case, is to ignore facts. A dwindling middle class, and the rise of the poverty level, and 10% unemployment.
Personally, just me, I would unite at the polls and vote every body who wasn't on MY side OUT!!
A weak government that gets out of the way of those that would rob, steal, pollute, and hoard? No WAY. An effective one that works for all of us equally, that's what I vote for. I vote to circulate the money, that simple, let every body be able to touch the tools of a strong growing economy. That's the class warfare. Those that can use the tools, and those that have no tools.
The way it is now, only the rich can get a loan from the bank, to buy anything. That's not fair.
Gee, if that was the case all along the housing bubble would have never burst. People getting mortgages that should never have thanks to a Plan Obama was part of before he ever ran for a political office and came into being under Bill Clinton.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
All those deadbeat poor people refusing to pay their mortgages... I mean imagine... being expected to pay money you borrow back... and having to prove you are capable of paying a loan back before someone will loan you any money... for shame... for shame.
How much of his own money has George Soros handed out to the poor with no expectations of a repayment or GASP... interest, How about Warren Buffett?
You have a right to anything you can actually pay for yourself... and not one thing more.
Everyone isn't "entitled" to own a property they can't or won't pay for. That's what Rentals are for.
People aren't entitled to free handouts either... you want to borrow money, you are expected to pay it back with interest. Or here is a novel concept... save the money up before you buy something and pay cash.
That just it Smoothy. Banks where giving loans to anybody, instead of refusing them. Why, because it was highly profitable. Second mortgages? Highly profitable. But now they can't even say who owns those mortgages ant more, because they "bundled" them and sold them for even more profit. Then they laid off those people and now you have a bunch of empty houses, and even still, banks make more money foreclosing, than they do negotiating. That's why the states are investigating the banks, and the insurance companies and the role they are playing in the housing industry crash. Its was a rip off.
No different than the tech bubble, or the junk bond bubble, just bigger.
They did't do it because it was profitible... but what was it called, the Community reinvestment act... actually forced them into giving loans they once wouldn't touch because they were too risky. Under the pretext everyone deserved to own their own home.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And the fact is, everyone isn't, because far too many people aren't responsible enough, or insist on buying more than they could reasonibly afford.
And the Bundling was just an offshoot of that to find some way to make some money off that risk.
A lot of foreclosures are people walking away because it dropped to less than they paid, not because they couldn't afford to pay. That's an example of people that should have never received a loan because that irresponsibility would have been reflected in their credit history.
That's pure BS, it was all about greed. That's why they had deregulated the freaking banking industry in the first place. It made it legal to steal, and you can whitewash it any way you please, but that's what happens every time you hire a fox to guard the hen house. The hens disappear. It's a great idea, people in houses, but they had no choice but to walk away, before they were kicked out. Credit ruined in any case.
The banks WANT you to walk away, they profit from that too!They just resell it to someone who has some money. You know, the ones with jobs still, that didn't get laid off, or over leveraged.
Heck, the banks don't even know who owns the house anymore, they lost 90% of the original records remember?
Deregulated Corporate Power=GREED!! That's what the war is about.
That's what the DNC wants you to think... the banks didn't give mortgages to the lazy bums with the bad credit because they wanted to, they did it because they were forced to. Under Bill Clinton.
The Democrats spent the last several decades preaching about how EVERYONE deserves to own their own home... its their right after all, Nothing was said about them having to actually pay for it... but there are those that believe they should not have to.
And now the left wants to pretend they never wanted the deadbeats to get mortgages?
http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/o...ake-bad-loans/
Towards the bottom is Obama on Video in 2007 saying it was a GOOD idea.
Having a house is great, but the DNC (or the RNC) forced no banks to give out loans that they knew couldn't be paid. The greedy bankers approved such loans because they established a hook up with the insurance companies to provide them with the means to make money, and cash in when the loan was defaulted. They rigged the game to fail, for profit, and passed all those bad loans to global banks. Repubs, AND Dem's VOTED to deregulate the banks and let them police themselves, just as they do other corporations.
See what big oil is doing, and wants to do more of it.
You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. To ignore what was done by the banks, insurance companies, rating agencies, and politicians is... supporting criminal activity. Funny how you jump on one criminal, and not the other. This was definitely BIPARTISAN stupidity.
Yes they did... Obama was part of that lawsuit making them... the CRA is all about that right to its core... and even Obama says as much in his own words on video...Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
If the Messiah says it on video... you are committing blasphemy for not believing his words. Its right out of the horses mouth... you are trying to argue Obama isn't part of something he himself says he was?
From that first lawsuit the total reason for all of that was to give unqualified people loans for houses they could never afford, because after all, to deny an unqualified applicant a loan is racist.
Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The b@stards took a good idea, and got greedy. Read the whole darn thing and stop with the edited snipets of some right wing blog.Quote:
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011: "In the early part of the 20th century, we erected a series of protections—the Federal Reserve as a lender of last resort, federal deposit insurance, ample regulations—to provide a bulwark against the panics that had regularly plagued America’s banking system in the 20th century. Yet, over the past 30-plus years, we permitted the growth of a shadow banking system—opaque and laden with short term debt—that rivaled the size of the traditional banking system. Key components of the market—for example, the multitrillion-dollar repo lending market, off-balance-sheet entities, and the use of over-the-counter derivatives—were hidden from view, without the protections we had constructed to prevent financial meltdowns. We had a 21st-century financial system with 19th-century safeguards."[59]
And Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, along with John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Barrak Obaba were right smack in the middle of the Fannie Mae debackle...
BullS**. A so-called report published under the OBama administration trying to distance themselves from his key involvement in the housing mess from day one.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That qualifies as nothing more the DNC published propaganda...
Throw in a dinosaur and it qualifies as science fiction... take out the dinosaur, its still fiction.
I know you didn't read the whole thing, so I just have to keep giving the facts.Quote:
Both government failed regulation and deregulation contributed to the crisis. In testimony before Congress both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Alan Greenspan conceded failure in allowing the self-regulation of investment banks.[116][117]
Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush.[118] In 1982, Congress passed the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages. Among the new mortgage loan types created and gaining in popularity in the early 1980s were adjustable-rate, option adjustable-rate, balloon-payment and interest-only mortgages. These new loan types are credited with replacing the long standing practice of banks making conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages. Among the criticisms of banking industry deregulation that contributed to the savings and loan crisis was that Congress failed to enact regulations that would have prevented exploitations by these loan types. Subsequent widespread abuses of predatory lending occurred with the use of adjustable-rate mortgages.[41][119] Approximately 90% of subprime mortgages issued in 2006 were adjustable-rate mortgages.[2]
You insist on Ignoring the facts...
THey have a Court Docket with Obamas name on it sueing for the right of people with poor credit to get loans they aren't qualified to get... and it went downhill from there.
Liberal Bloggers can't change that reality...
And the fact the Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are in this up to their ears... Obama was the major recipient of money from the major crooks, and everything about this has major Democrat involvement.
The democrats are always trying to pretend they are something they never were...
Like if they had their way no civil rights laws or anything of the sort would have ever passed... They can create as many blogs as they want, history proves otherwise.
Just like Global warming hoax created by Al Gore as a get rich quick scheme. He could count on people loyal to the party doing what they were told.
Tal you keep blaming the banks while providing proof that the government tried manipulating the market to make it accessible to people who were not qualified to receive a mortgage under the old well established formula.
This speaks volumes...
The government was investing in home ownership not in steering first time buyers, and those looking to leverage their equity into scams the banks profited on. That was the heart of the housing bubble bursting. You only have part of this scam, first time buyers, but the fact is that many of the people have home loans they can afford, but the equity was leveraged out by the deceptive bank practices, and the scandal of collusion between builders, and appraisers.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes I blame the banks, for turning a good idea into a financial nightmare. And I am not the only one, because the states attorney's in 50 states agree with me.
Bank of America sued over mortgage abuses | Capitol Hill Blue
To put all the blame on government, and gullible buyers is to miss a lot of criminal activities that at the time was unknown. You are still ignoring those that could have afforded their mortgage if it was done in a fair way, and not in greed. The banks knew full well what they were doing, and it was illegal, even with government backing and deregulations. They clearly took full advantage of secretly rigging the game Tom, to extract money from the system. CRIMINAL!Quote:
The lawsuits could complicate Bank of America’s efforts to quickly resolve inquiries into its mortgage foreclosure practices. The probes include a 50-state investigation that is also looking at JPMorgan Chase & Co, Ally Financial and other major mortgage servicers.
Last month Bank of America Chief Executive Brian Moynihan said a quick settlement of the 50-state probe would be the best solution for all involved.
I don't deal in spin, or perception, I deal in facts.
If there is criminal activity then where are the indictments ? The AGs are looking for a payout to the states and a bee-line to the Governor's mansions.
If there was criminal activity there should be indictments . I find it curious that the Obots demonize Wall Street and yet Holder hasn't charged any of them .
Perhaps they know if the bank execs go down then Barney Frank and Chris Dodd would go down with them. Perhaps they know that Franklin Raines and Penny Pritzker and Jim Johnson and Jamie Gorelick would all be frog marched if the truth was revealed in a court room.
Heck ,even very liberal Village Voice had the integrity to detail Andrew Cuomo's strong arm tactics while he directed HUD .
The rogues gallery of Dems wearing horizontal pinstripes would destroy the party. Perhaps even the details of how the President got a sweet heart deal for his Chi-town house would be revealed to the public finally .
I don't blame the buyers . They should never ' been offered the mortgages in the 1st place ;and I don't give Bush a free pass for the policy either . He also thought it a good idea for people who can't afford to pay for homes to own them. But at least he and McCain introduced legislation to try to reform the system... who blocked it ? Dodd and Frank.
Ya know Tom, that's exactly what the New York AG is asking.Quote:
if there is criminal activity then where are the indictments ? The AGs are looking for a payout to the states and a bee-line to the Governor's mansions.
He doesn't want a settlement, he wants a deeper look.
NY AG Investigating Big Banks Over Packaging Of Mortgage Loans
NY AG right to balk at bank deal
Why isn't the Feds doing it ? Why didn't Cuomo do it when he was AG (no need to answer... I already explained his role in this ) .
These law suits are more an attempt to pad the state coffers than putting bad guys away.
Many times these firms will pay a fine or settlement and go on their merry way... the payment being part of a business expense.
What the AGs aren't doing is looking for criminal behavior . The people allegedly screwed by the financial institutions won't see a dime.
And to further make a mockery of this is that their beef with the banks isn't the activity leading up to the crisis . It's how they have handled foreclosures.
Why ? Because the banks were playing under the rules that the government established before the crisis .
Again... the OWS(aka the Bowel Movement ) people are protesting the wrong place. They should all converge on Washington instead of stinking up lower Manhattan. (and those morons who decided to go after a public museum like the Air &Space Museum have no idea what their beef is about ) .
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Maybe the banks were following a cue from Barney Frank. He defended it to the end. Even getting his lover a position in Fannie May and forcing them to do business so his lover could make money. Even as far back as 2003.
Free Frank Warner: Barney Frank opposed regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, but no one reminds him
Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
Michelle Malkin Barney Frank's Friends with Benefits; Update: New Fannie/Freddie lavish comp figures
The Bowel Movement, perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Raj Rajaratnam got 11 years Think that will sate the pitch fork crowd ?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:29 AM. |