I can always pay cash . There is no inherent right to get things on credit ;just like there is no inherent right to OWN a home.
|
I can always pay cash . There is no inherent right to get things on credit ;just like there is no inherent right to OWN a home.
There is no inherent right for something important like owning a home and yet there is an inherent right for something unimportant like owning a gun. It seems that priorities ahould be reordered so that protection is placed in the right place protecting the people from the thieves in the banking industry. Once the charge is enshrined in legislation it can be upped and it will become like a taxQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
OK then the right is the same... dependent on your ability to purchase.
There are no doubt thieves in that industry like all industries The difference ;and the one I would endQuote:
protecting the people from the thieves in the banking industry
Is that the government bails out the thieves and encourages them to continue .
The fact remains it was the government trying to manage the housing market that created the financial crisis in the 1st place ;under the premise of a good intention ;that everyone should own a home. Some of the worse abuses of the nanny state are created by good intentions.
There is no inherent right to be furnished either. I believe those we allegedly evolved from lived in caves and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Then speech you can go back to living in caves where you will have no need of credit cards
Since when is a credit card a "need" . I consider it a convenience... but like all conveniences ,I shop around ,get the best deal I can ,and yes ,read the fine print.
I bought and paid for my house, dude. Every last penny.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
There are no doubt thieves in that industry like all industries Strongly agree
The difference ;and the one I would end is that the government bails out the thieves and encourages them to continue.Dodd/Frank is a wind down process that doesn't tank the economy, but we still need a sheriff with a jail
The fact remains it was the government trying to manage the housing market that created the financial crisis in the 1st place ;under the premise of a good intention ;that everyone should own a home. Some of the worse abuses of the nanny state are created by good intentions. I Disagree somewhat here Tom, because the banks took advantage of the good intentions of the policy. That doesn't excuse the gullibility of government to not have stricter oversights though, but history tells us they had long done away with the rules to prevent this robbery from happening.
It doesn't excuse Congress for failing to heed Bush's 17 warnings.
You've only scratched the surface Steve bacause it started wayyyyyyyyyyyy before Bush,
Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (majority report), Federal Reserve Economists, and several academic researchers have stated that government affordable housing policies were not the major cause of the financial crisis.[90][91] They also state that Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations... Some analysts feels that predatory lending was a more important factor leading to the crisis. The George W. Bush administration was accused of blocking ongoing state investigations into predatory lending practices as the bubble continued to grow.[94]
Quote:
As noted, in December 2011 the Securities and Exchange Commission charged the former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives, accusing them of misleading investors about risks of subprime-mortgage loans.[95] According to one analyst, "The SEC's facts paint a picture in which it wasn't high-minded government mandates that did the GSEs wrong, but rather the monomaniacal focus of top management on marketshare. With marketshare came bonuses and with bonuses came risk-taking, understood or not."[96]
That doesn't mean I let the government off the hook at all. Nor do I forgive them from not be aggressive in rounding the real thieves up and getting our loot back.Quote:
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause."[97][98] GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders into subprime lending.[99]
In addition to political pressure to expand purchases of higher-risk mortgage types, the GSE were also under significant competitive pressure from large investment banks and mortgage lenders. For example, some analysts estimate that Fannie's market share of subprime mortgage-backed securities issued dropped from a peak of 44% in 2003 to 22% in 2005, before rising to 33% in 2007.[100]
By some estimates, more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages came from private lending institutions in 2006 and the share of subprime loans insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decreased as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48 percent to insuring 24 percent of all subprime loans in 2006).[101] Despite conservative criticism for government lending programs as the main cause of the crisis,[102][103][104][105] much of the crisis was independent of government home loan programs.
no it isn't it codifies a permanent policy of bailout for those the ruling class deem 'too big to fail'. Eric Holder has been AG for 4 years... where are the indictments ?Quote:
Dodd/Frank is a wind down process that doesn't tank the economy, but we still need a sheriff with a jail
Re The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission : In voting on the adoption of the final report the Commission was split evenly along partisan lines, with Angelides, Born, Georgiou, Graham, Murren, and Thompson (appointed by Pelosi and Reid) all voting in favor and Thomas, Hennessey, Holtz-Eakin, and Wallison (appointed by Bonehead and McConnell) all dissenting.
There were 2 minority reports . The best of them penned by Wallison .
http://www.aei.org/files/2011/01/26/Wallisondissent.pdf
Two entirely different issues, since the first takes a rather long time process by knowledgeable people, and the second takes specific evidence against individuals who have taken great care to cover their tracks.
The common thing between the two is the big money and lawyers tying the hands on anybody who wants facts and justice. I don't think this is over.
Time to move on, the facts are known, the money has been spent, and the outcome is known
I doubt any of that is true Clete, and we can move forward because the goal to form a more perfect union is a never ending job. There will always be challenges to progress.
What you thought we would just quit because times are tough? We had gone as far as we could go? I don't think so.
Tom don't be ridiculous, but the events of four years ago were four years ago and you have different challenges today, You are no longer deciding whether to subsidise and bail out industries, but you are deciding how to go forward in a post GFC era, how to stimulate employment without adding to debt, how to reallocate resources and deal with big issues like immigration, guns and the continuing threat of Al QaedaQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You know that better regulation is needed you knew that four years ago
Of course it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, "ruling elites" don't just rule. In any hierarchical system who rules is decided by allegiances formed and dissolved. This has always been the case with any feudal type system. In this day and age the role of brokering is one role of government. We vote to change the brokers.
OK all you constitution lovers and Bush haters, when are you going to get your panties in a wad over Obama's drone policies?
And who is partly behind this policy? The same guy that wanted Bush hung for his terrorist policies...Quote:
"If George Bush had done this, it would have been stopped." That's how MSNBC host Joe Scarborough characterized a Justice Department memo obtained by NBC News that outlines the Obama administration's legal rationale for killing American citizens suspected of helping al Qaeda prepare a terrorist attack on the United States. Critics say the 16-page document gives President Obama essentially unlimited powers to target U.S. citizens without trial, raising a host of ethical and constitutional questions about the administration's heavy reliance on drone missile attacks to enfeeble the terrorist network.
What criteria does the government need to meet to justify an attack on an American member of al Qaeda? According to the memo, an "informed, high-level official" within the government must determine that: 1) the individual in question poses "an imminent threat of violence attack against the United States"; 2) capture of the individual is "infeasible"; and 3) the attack is "conducted in a manner consistent with" the laws of war.
Upon even a cursory examination, however, these constraints are virtually meaningless. The government is not required to "have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future." Furthermore, the feasibility of capture can be determined by several factors, including if it would simply be too risky for U.S. personnel to conduct a capture operation, or if a capture operation would imperil a "relevant window of opportunity." There are miles of space to maneuver within the so-called constraints.
He must have had a change of heart...Quote:
In 2010, Harold Koh — then the legal adviser of the State Department, and a fierce critic of the Bush administration's terrorist policies — was the first Obama official to publicly lay out the broad legal justifications for drone strikes. Attorney General Eric Holder last year said the Constitution's guarantee of due process does not necessarily entail a "judicial process" in situations in which national security is at stake
Hello Steve:
I don't know if I posted about it or not, but I'm not into extra Constitutional activities.
excon
What can we say, the empire strikes back?
You're also not as apoplectic about it as you were Bush. Guess it depends on who's in office, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Funny thing is I don't get apoplectic thinking about the President authorizing the wack of a senior AQ leader ;a guy who sent a jihadist on a plane to blow it up on Christmas over a major US city .
Hello again,
Droning deserves its own thread, and I gave it one..
excon
Obama 2.0... early indications is that all those Millenials that he organized for his campaign ;and who voted for him at 60% ,are being thrown under the bus.
The recent unemployment numbers went up across the board . But the young-uns are being left behind big time . The number for 18-29 years old is 16. 2% according to Generation Opportunity
Generation Opportunity
53.6% of college graduates are unemployed or underemployed. That's 4 years into the worse recovery since the Great Depression.
The American people had the good sense to oust Jimmy Carter in 1980. I think we are about to see what a 2nd Carter term would've looked like... on steroids.
Still blaming government (Obama) for no jobs instead of the job creators for not making jobs, while repubs run around talking about too much spending, and we can't afford to spend for jobs or infrastructure (even with damn near 0% interest).
If repubs get out of the way and let government work, instead of clogging up the works, we may get out of this self inflicted crisis. Naw after 4 years of obstruction, you're going for 8.
But don't be surprised if the rest of the country gets sick of right wing tomfoolery a lot sooner than 4 more years.
I just cannot fathom the hubris of this president and the media's unwillingness to hold his feet to the fire on anything...
I'm not stunned, it's SOP for this administration to cover up and lie.Quote:
Obama Claims Administration ‘Most Transparent in History’
Fact check finds a length record of failed reform and increased secrecy
BY: CJ Ciaramella
February 14, 2013 6:13 pm
President Obama once again claimed his administration is the “most transparent in history” Thursday, despite lengthy record of failed reform and increased secrecy.
Obama was answering questions during a Google hangout when a woman questioned him on his promises of greater government transparency, noting things “feels a lot less transparent.”
“This is the most transparent administration in history,” Obama assured the woman. “I can document that this is the case.”
“Every visitor that comes into the White House is now part of the record,” Obama continued. “Just about every law that we pass and rule that we implement we put online for everyone to see.”As extensively reported by the Washington Free Beacon, the Obama administration’s record on transparency has been a great source of disappointment to government watchdog groups and journalists.
...
“Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing Freedom of Information Act work. … It’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There’s just no question about it,” Katherine Meyer, a Washington lawyer who’s been filing FOIA cases since 1978, told Politico in March. “This administration is raising one barrier after another. … It’s gotten to the point where I’m stunned—I’m really stunned.”
Remember the media having a collective orgasm over Sarah Palin using a private email account as governor? Why haven't they had the same over Obama's EPA chief Lisa Jackson using an official government account under the alias “Richard Windsor”?
Does anything raise a red flag with you libs and the media regarding this administration? I'm honestly flummoxed by the lengths gone to cover for these crooks and liars.
More lies from you:
Quote:
If today’s delivery of emails from the EPA is anything like the tranche CEI received in January, it will not provide any valuable information about how Jackson employed her Richard Windsor email account. Indeed, the delivery we received in January — 2,100 emails total, significantly shy of the promised 3,000 — consisted entirely of Google news alerts and press clippings.
I don't get apologetic over it either Tom but the implications are anyone can be taken out, any time. Summary justice looks good but do you really want kangaroo court or star chamber operating in WashingtonQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Obama doesn't grasp the concept of overtures or compromise he's a thug that thinks everything should be his way or not at all.
In 4 years he as never made an overture.. or an offer to Compromise... but he's got time to learn how.
He's not the king, the Messiah or the Emperor, and its time he learns it.
He spend the first years of his first term trying to compromise with Republicans who finally outright stated they had no intention of cooperating with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Ah but you elevate the president so much you can't help him thinking he has been elected king
No he didn't . His first 2 terms were spent ramming through his spending "stimulus " and Obamacare laws . He didn't give a rat's @ss what the Repubics thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Hello again,
Funny. I remember history different than you... I remember Obama shaping Obamcare so that Republicans would like it... I remember his putting tax cuts in the stimulus so the Republicans would like it... Did they like it? No!
Do we live in the same country?
excon
PS> I DO remember that the night he was inaugurated, a bunch of right wingers met to INSURE they would NEVER agree to ANYTHING this president did. They didn't give a rat's a$$ about the country.
Are you SURE we live in the same country? Over here, it's Saturday AM.
Oh yeah ;Republicans were clamoring for a complete overhauling and dismantling of the health care industry. You must mean that he brought in crony capitalists in the medical fields and laid down the law to them ;and threw them a bone or two as compensation .That must be the" shaping Obamcare so that Republicans would like it"you are talking about .
As for the stimulus "tax cuts " ;there was an AMT fix ,something that periodically gets done instead of just eliminating it. There was some very limited targeted tax cuts including "Making Work Pay Credit" ,an expansion of the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Credit ,and a new education tax credit. These targeted and temporary credits completely miss the point. What is needed instead is less credits ,deductions ,and accounting schemes in favor of permanent reductions and simplification of the tax code. Oh yeah ;I forgot to mention the $7,500 for families buying over priced plug-in hybrid vehicles. That credit has not exactly worked as a stimulus ;and only can be used by the few who can afford a plug in electric ;and who travel local roads for short distances. Not very stimulating if you ask me.
Nah ;a real stimulus would've been permanent rate reductions and fixes ;instead of failed Keynesian pump priming ,or wealth transfers to local municipal unions. .
Not to mention he had a Democrat-controlled Congress for two years.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Do have anything besides personal attacks? You can't point out anything I've lied about, ever. There is no lie in reporting her using an alias with an official government account, that alone is a red flag. There is no lie in calling them crooks and liars, it's documented. And genius, what's in the other 900 emails they withheld? You're pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Touched a nerve did I?
There are many instances where you willfully post misinformation. I'll use your buddy smoothy's standard response: just search it yourself, I can't be bothered.Quote:
You can't point out anything I've lied about, ever.
Oh yeah ;Republicans were clamoring for a complete overhauling and dismantling of the health care industry. You must mean that he brought in crony capitalists in the medical fields and laid down the law to them ;and threw them a bone or two as compensation .That must be the" shaping Obamcare so that Republicans would like it"you are talking about .
You mean privatizing and shifting the costs and exposure from the government to the consumer with a subsidy for premiums? That is what republicans would like. Nobody else did and the concept was roundly DEFEATED in the last election.
As for the stimulus "tax cuts " ;there was an AMT fix ,something that periodically gets done instead of just eliminating it. There was some very limited targeted tax cuts including "Making Work Pay Credit" ,an expansion of the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Credit ,and a new education tax credit. These targeted and temporary credits completely miss the point. What is needed instead is less credits ,deductions ,and accounting schemes in favor of permanent reductions and simplification of the tax code.
Credits that benefit struggling poor and lower wage earners should be permanent, especially those that are/were affected adversely from the financial collapse. A fact that republicans seem to completely ignore. But those accounting schemes for the rich, or well to do, who seemed to have survived and thrived thru the meltdown should have been eliminated long ago.
Oh yeah ;I forgot to mention the $7,500 for families buying over priced plug-in hybrid vehicles. That credit has not exactly worked as a stimulus ;and only can be used by the few who can afford a plug in electric ;and who travel local roads for short distances. Not very stimulating if you ask me.
It worked while it lasted and small as it really was, it helped a segment of the population that keepa few jobs for a while. It may not be the big bubble you are use to, but sustains itself for now.
Nah ;a real stimulus would've been permanent rate reductions and fixes ;instead of failed Keynesian pump priming ,or wealth transfers to local municipal unions. .
And Romney lost that argument, so when are you going to come up with something that people like and can see it helping them now? People are quite tired of having things trickle down to them in rates that the elite so called "job creators" deem proper. With the help of the party that says no to EVERYTHING, and refuses to collaborate, or compromise for the good of the many, and not just the few. Even the so called wealth tranferance you speak of leaves trillion of dollar in the mattresses of your elite rich guy job creators and yet you still begrudge us ordinary people a crumb or a bone.
Whats more disgusting is the way you frame the stuff ordinary citizens need as neccecities you call underserved FREE STUFF, and tout your rich guy capitalists as the injured party. You want reforms? Show people how it helps thems, and not just transfers wealth and power to those that don't believe in sharing or trickling.
I submit to you that until a whole helluva lot more trickling is done, opposition to republican principles will be seen even more.
That's a straw argument since the plan from the beginning was to use parlimentery tricks to obstruct, stall, and stop everything no matter what it was, and then blame the left for NOTHING working.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:26 PM. |