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.
Keep waving those treasonous aberrations called "Obama flags" for all of these Libturds to see. They are as dense as the Germans who supported the German National Socialist Party and the rise of Hitler. Even when ALL the symbols of tyranny are right in front of their faces, they refuse to see.
I tried to rep ya again, but it appears I have to "spread it around" more, first.
The German National SOCIALIST Party
The American National SOCIALIST Party
The Obama flag is available for purchase on barackobama.com shopping website for $35.00
Well this thread turned stupid fast, thanks Ray, I can always count on you for that...please tell us more about how flags with Obama upset you so, I do love hearing your ranting so much.
Obama ad:
...(blather, blather)...
" The reason we got into this mess is because there were not enough regulations on the banks." Sorry, wrong again. Too much regulation forcing the banks to make bad loans is what caused the housing crisis. There were also regulations that should have stopped the ratings agencies from rating mortgage instruments "A" when they were BBB-. Incompetent government missed the boat enforcing those regulations."
...(blather, blather)...
Leave it to a conservative to get it bass-ackwards.
If there had been too much regulation, then why was the derivatives market, which treated mortgages like penny stocks, ever created? For the first 60 years of the 20th century, a home mortgage was the most secure investment a working man could have.
What happened? Starting with Reagan, every Republican President and Congress allowed the stock market and the big banks to claw their way into that treasure trove. Why? Because the regulations that kept them out of housing were carved away, a slice at a time. It took them over 20 years to do it, but that's bone-head tenacity for you. It was the lack of regulation that caused the bank collapse, period.
Don't try to make black white, riko. We all know the difference.
Most of us were born in the dark, but it wasn't that dark.
A home mortgage was not the most secure investment, a mortgage was and is a liability.
And then what happened? GOVERNMENT policy led to high interest rates, which cost the savings and loan industry (holders of all those mortgage loans) their entire net worth, PLUS one trillion dollars--which the taxpayers had to pick up. The government policy mandated, or encouraged, or subsidized all kinds on nonsense under the guise of "fair lending" and "affordable housing." Chris Dodd and Barney Frank did more than any other two men to cause the crisis.
As for the notion that Wall Street and the big banks made out like bandits from the crash, you must not understand arithmetic. The big publicly traded banks have lost more than a trillion dollars of their owners net worth, in many cases going to zero. Executive compensation, heavily tied to stock performance, was cut to ribbons.
Was there trouble with derivatives? Hell yes--and the Fed under Alan Greenspan believed that derivatives reduced risk in the financial system.
Now, you are advocating that a crisis caused by non-prime borrowers using non-standard forms of mortgages is somehow a valid reason to gut the community banking system in this country, further consolidate lending into larger and larger megabanks because the little guys can't keep up with the new regs, and make conventional mortgage finance for prime borrowers more costly and difficult to obtain. All that is why Obama is full of it when he talks about regulation.
"No you di-ent"??? What is that? I had to stop reading at that point. It's bad enough when people pronounce words that way, but writing like that? WTH is that?
You compare an empty chair to a flag?? How ironic that it actually fits isn't it? How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States. There were warnings 3 weeks ahead, another warning from the Libyan government a couple days before the attack. The night before the Egyptian government played 42 min show calling attacks on American interests. Obama wanted to keep a low profile so he did not increase protection because he feared that it might aggravate the Muslim Brotherhood.
According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli.
Maybe Obama attended important Intel meetings we would not have this, 4 Americans who died - A TERRORIST ATTACK.
HIS CHAIR IS EMPTY MOST OF THE TIME, because Obama was busy campaigning and hobnobbing with the rich, too busy to go to daily Intel meetings. To add insult to Americans after a short speech Obama flies off to Vegas to campaign, then off to the Letterman show, then off to Jay-Z.
The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.
Obama ad:
...(blather, blather)...
" The reason we got into this mess is because there were not enough regulations on the banks." Sorry, wrong again. Too much regulation forcing the banks to make bad loans is what caused the housing crisis. There were also regulations that should have stopped the ratings agencies from rating mortgage instruments "A" when they were BBB-. Incompetent government missed the boat enforcing those regulations."
...(blather, blather)...
Leave it to a conservative to get it bass-ackwards.
If there had been too much regulation, then why was the derivatives market, which treated mortgages like penny stocks, ever created? For the first 60 years of the 20th century, a home mortgage was the most secure investment a working man could have.
What happened? Starting with Reagan, every Republican President and Congress allowed the stock market and the big banks to claw their way into that treasure trove. Why? Because the regulations that kept them out of housing were carved away, a slice at a time. It took them over 20 years to do it, but that's bone-head tenacity for you. It was the lack of regulation that caused the bank collapse, period.
Don't try to make black white, riko. We all know the difference.
Most of us were born in the dark, but it wasn't that dark.
I love that you leave 8 years of Clinton out of your theory.
The banks found a way to not lose money on the bad loans they were forced to make. The SEC had regulations in place to stop these mortgage backed offerings. They could have investigated the rating agencies from rating the offerings much higher than they deserved. That would have stopped the purchase of these instruments. The SEC was asleep at the switch; inept as much government is.
So what do the democrats do? They write 1000 pages of banking regulations that no one can even figure out. Now banks won't even lend money. The regulations don't even touch Fannie and Freddie which were the biggest part of the problem! The economy suffers.
"No you di-ent"??? What is that? I had to stop reading at that point. It's bad enough when people pronounce words that way, but writing like that? WTH is that?
Yes, he got it wrong by noting that the problem arose because of too much regulations and then you jump right into the same pile of manure by refusing the acknowledge the Dems participation.
It's been noted over and over that it was Clinton that signed off on the deregulation. It was those like Barney Frank defending more of the very policies that was driving us off the banking clift.
The reason we are still in a mess is because there are far too many like both of you that insist on placing the blame on only one party.
Qu.What do you call the CRA forcing banks to make bad loans? Ans. Too much regulation.
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.
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.
