U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-02-2008, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,398,980 times
Reputation: 4893

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
if this is the case what is the difference between your 'democratic' government and mob justice?
Our Constitution provides that the Government IS the people - of the PEOPLE and BY the PEOPLE - FOR the PEOPLE

Our Constitution provides for the PEOPLE to have the absolute right to petition THEIR government - THEIR representatives

Members of Congress are elected by the people - and in the case of the House of REPRESENTATIVES - it is every two years that members stand for election. Because of this - members of the House tend to "listen" to their constituents a little more closely than does the Senate. And, in this case - they listened! The VOTERS (PEOPLE) strongly opposed the original bill - and the members of the House voted accordingly.

As they should
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-02-2008, 12:49 PM
 
12,870 posts, read 12,786,580 times
Reputation: 4446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Our Constitution provides that the Government IS the people - of the PEOPLE and BY the PEOPLE - FOR the PEOPLE

Our Constitution provides for the PEOPLE to have the absolute right to petition THEIR government - THEIR representatives

Members of Congress are elected by the people - and in the case of the House of REPRESENTATIVES - it is every two years that members stand for election. Because of this - members of the House tend to "listen" to their constituents a little more closely than does the Senate. And, in this case - they listened! The VOTERS (PEOPLE) strongly opposed the original bill - and the members of the House voted accordingly.

As they should

and as they should again!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 05:45 PM
 
Location: At my computador
2,057 posts, read 3,031,665 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
the term market-based is not exactly a controversial one. Whether defined exclusively or inclusively, there is a generally accepted understanding of its meaning here...
Then, in regard to your assertion "Most borrowers... could afford it still on sensible, market-based terms", is saying nothing.

If talking about CRA borrowers, they have better-than-market-based terms because they're subsidized. So, they're excluded from the group.

If talking about conventional borrowers, you're reciting a statement of fact: most borrowers are currently able to afford their properties purchased with their market-based terms.

Sensible is ambiguous in this application, and therefore, also nonsense.

Quote:
An increasing resort to open-ended questions and ever finer rhetorical parsings (of which this post is comprised in virtually its entirety) over actual response and discussion is certainly noted.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't intentionally using ambiguity or accidentally lost. In this case, as demonstrated above, I was wrong-- You're intentionally intellectually dishonest or uncertain of what you're saying.

Quote:
I suspect there is another typo here. I also suspect that the reason you report misunderstanding is that it affords cover and wiggle room against the forum's expectation for actually dealing with the topic of the thread in a responsible manner. As used here, btw, responsible means responsible.
Sounds to me like you're blaming the fart on your dog.

Quote:
CRA covers depository institutions, i.e., deposit-taking banks and S&L's. The difference between these and "pretty much" a storefront is pretty much substantial. I'm starting to think that you're pretty much confused on this particular matter.
Be more specific in the future and we'll not have these mix-ups.

Quote:
Please refer to notice of increasing resort to open-ended questions and rhetorical parsings appearing above.
I'll accept that as a retreat... but I'd prefer you just answered the questions honestly rather than being an intellectual coward who prizes ego over truth.

Quote:
See the above again, while noting that the Constitution refers to the political structure of this society while the actual point was related to socio-economic purposes that underly all societies.
You're not answering any questions that explain what justifies you implying the rejection of government intervention in this situation immoral. I'm giving you, just as I did with your cross-eyed use of common terms, the opportunity to support your argument because you have yet to do so.

I understand why. Marx and Engels would understand why. You don't want to expose the radical position of a Communist: You consider the retention of property to be immoral.

Do tell, if you're not a Communist, what ideology do you adhere? What ideology considers self-interest immoral? Do tell, do tell, comrade.

Quote:
The question is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how the original speaker or anyone else interprets Reagan's legacy. The point is over a particular Congressman's having put defense of whatever that fading legacy might be ahead of something as important as defending the nation against potentially looming economic collapse.
Really? How a person uses a term is irrelevant to their intended meaning?... And, do tell, whose argument is that?

Right.

Quote:
Many people are able to connect the dots correctly when there are only two of them on the paper, just as many politicians are able to put other interests ahead of that of re-election. Does that make the matter any clearer?
It's still fallacious. I'm trying to give you plenty of chances to put a foundation under the argument you prematurely built.

You're suggesting an awareness of intent with an inadequate example. You need to do better than that if you want to convince anyone of anything. The only people who would be able to "connect the dots" to your conclusion would have to impute premises that aren't there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Yes, I could see where a compensating factor such as having half a million bucks in the bank would make me more willing as an underwriter to accept a higher back-end ratio. These and an array other such variables were refered to earlier as being among the factors that naturally vary against themselves and over time in considering finance applications and making decisions about creditworthiness and estimated ability to repay. There is no news here.
If only $.5M was a common compensating factor. It's not. Regular compensating factors were "anticipating a promotion".

Fannie would accept it.

Quote:
Fannie Mae does not so much use Desktop Underwriter as it maintains and distributes it for field use by individual bankers and brokers in obtaining a quickie Yes/No/Maybe determination regarding the accepability of a particular loan application. The obvious Yes's will be accepted, the obvious No's (if submitted) will not, the Maybe's will be routed to a human underwriter for further and more detailed analysis. DU is a time-saver (and a significant one), not a decision-maker.
I guess if you want to play with the definition of "use" you can say that... Which would make the following statement true. "GM doesn't use franchisees to sell cars." Fannie competes with other investors for loans. DU is there to help them get loans. I don't understand your motivation to distinguish between the two... except to compensate for a lack of understanding of the system? If it's something else, please cite.

Regarding how DU works: If DU routes EA loans to Fannie-sponsored UW's, I didn't know that... because anytime we couldn't get an EA (expanded approval which turns a subprime loan into a prime loan for all common intents and purposes), you simply call the Fannie hotline and get in touch with one of their UW's who help you manipulate the system (that means adjust the loan so DU will take it... Yeah, Fannie helped us do that.)

I assume, due to your apparent intellectual dishonesty, that you're using the phrase "not a decision-maker" in the same ambiguous way you tried to use "market based". The decision maker is the bean counter at Fannie who tells the programmer what DU will approve and reject. So, DU isn't a decision maker in the sense that it's capable of making a decision.

Quote:
CRA notes are in general set on a separate path within Fannie Mae through the My Community Mortgage program which leads to targeted bundles being made available in secondary markets to satisfy the demands of such as socially conscious investment funds and depositories seeking to shore up their qualifications with regard to the CRA investment test, what with CRA ratings being an important marker for urban banks and S&L's in terms of community image and reputation. There are distinctive guildelines for CRA's owing to their distinctive legislative and administrative contexts.
I assume that Communist value that morality of the bourgeoisie is artificial empowers you to rise to insincerity.

CRA loans are permitted to be underwritten through DU. I have never seen a CRA loan get rejected by using Fannie's criteria.

Quote:
You're adopting a vague and scattershot approach to the matter that might be typical of one not having acquired a big-picture perspective that could have served well in terms of establishing context. Noteworthy perhaps in the light you seek to cast here is the fact that one of the major concerns that Fannie Mae has had with respect to the aforementioned Destop Underwriter over the time periods in question has been how to upgrade the product so as to better detect proliferating attempts at broker fraud. Interesting, wouldn't you agree?
Not really... You began this exchange with a number of personal attacks, it's not surprising that you'd end it with personal attacks. Interesting? No... typical is more accurate.

Regarding your claims about Fannie's efforts to improve DU: What they'd be looking to establish is characteristics of loans that are symptomatic of fraud such as false tax returns, false employment records, etc. That's fraud.

What they are not suggesting is that they consider including or excluding child support as income in order to get a person approved to be fraud.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 07:03 PM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,532,141 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Greatday
Quote:
Our Constitution provides that the Government IS the people - of the PEOPLE and BY the PEOPLE - FOR the PEOPLE
The problem here is that your government only represents the people; it is not truly the people.
As long as a democracy is only a representative democracy it is not truly a democracy.
You still have a small group (the government) lording it over a large group (the citizens).
Unfortunately through the size of our population a direct democracy is impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 08:00 PM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,766,906 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand View Post
I understand why. Marx and Engels would understand why. You don't want to expose the radical position of a Communist: You consider the retention of property to be immoral. Do tell, if you're not a Communist, what ideology do you adhere? What ideology considers self-interest immoral? Do tell, do tell, comrade.
When all else fails -- and it has -- accuse your interlocutor of being a Communist. What a complete waste of time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 08:10 PM
 
Location: At my computador
2,057 posts, read 3,031,665 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
When all else fails -- and it has -- accuse your interlocutor of being a Communist. What a complete waste of time.
Intellectual courage; try it some time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 08:12 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,506,936 times
Reputation: 47458
bek rich people are even harder to put in jail than the poor, disfunctional judicial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 05:39 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,766,906 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand View Post
Intellectual courage; try it some time.
Intellectual honesty: Try figuring out what it is sometime. Skimpy facts, paltry perspective, and eighth-grade elocution won't quite cut the mustard...in this forum, or any other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Texas
5,070 posts, read 8,778,141 times
Reputation: 1627
Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

And also the Pledge, which says "...and to the Republic for which it stands>>>"

So I call it a republic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Cary, NC
31,662 posts, read 55,447,685 times
Reputation: 30200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

And also the Pledge, which says "...and to the Republic for which it stands>>>"

So I call it a republic.
A note:
Your link indicates that our Representatives who rightfully exercise power are elected "...by the citizens who are entitled to vote..." which is greatly different from a true democracy, wherein one might expect that ALL citizens would be entitled to vote.
The framers did not empower all citizens to vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top