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.
They were forced by the government to make those loans, as I explain in my post (# 270) above.
Did he or did he not run Fannie during the years leading up to the crisis?
Did he or did he not walk away with $90 million?
Was he or was he not a friend of Obama's?
Did Obama work for ACORN or didn't he?
You need to pick better "black dudes" to represent you.
You'll find plenty of them in the Republican Party.
Yeah...all the fine black folks in the Republican Party. That's ok. Keep your Toms. They're more use to you than they are to me.
The banks were not FORCED to make those loans. They created those products all on their own. This idea that the government made them do it is you guys' way of kissing the asses of the wealthy as usual.
Yeah...all the fine black folks in the Republican Party. That's ok. Keep your Toms. They're more use to you than they are to me.
The banks were not FORCED to make those loans. They created those products all on their own. This idea that the government made them do it is you guys' way of kissing the asses of the wealthy as usual.
You're wrong about that. Like I said, even Barney Frank finally admitted it on C-SPAN.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to illuminate why these articles are offensive to middle America. The Atlantic story was very good, well written and spoke of the problems many in middle America face. I left the article with a positive view of Iowans and what they are struggling with. Interestingly enough, I am reading "Hillbilly Elegy" by J.D. Vance currently and Appalachia faces many of the same issues raised in The Atlantic story you linked. Vance states many in Appalachia were highly offended by an ABC news story about "Mountain Dew mouth," an oral disorder brought on by drinking sugary drinks from infanthood on. Appalachians were furious about it. Why? Was the report false? No. It was true. They were angry because outsiders dared to talk about this serious health issue. Is this what is happening with The Atlantic article? Is addressing the very real issues our farmers face verboten lest the myth of the American farmer is revealed as something more complex than many of us realize?
For my part, I believe the author did an excellent job of speaking to Iowa's positives while addressing its negatives. Again, I ask why is this bad?
The video of Andrea Mitchell wouldn't play for me. So, all I have to go on is the "too white, too evangelical, too rural" statement quoted in the preview of the video. What Mitchell was saying, as well as Stephen G. Bloom, author of The Atlantic article, is the curiosity of Iowa being so important to the election because of its homogeneous population and absence of diversity in terms of its economy and history. This isn't a knock on Iowans at all. Its a statement of opinion based on facts. It IS curious why a state like Iowa would prove to be so important in national elections.
No, really...it didn't. Greed did. And the poor weren't the greedy...the bankers were.
But there you conservatives go again; excusing the behavior of the elite class and denigrating the poor.
Especially lame when one considers that you're all a hell of a lot closer financially to the poor than you are to bankers, who wouldn't even give you the time of day.
Bankers lied to the poor in order to line their own pockets. This is a fact. Historically speaking, the poor are ill educated on the finer points of finance and with good reason - they've never had to deal with it because they are poor. Bankers took advantage of the poor's ignorance and desire to move up to the middle class.
The Fed Gov tells banks to lend to the poor. Consequently, banks lend to the poor, many of whom can't pay their mortgages.
Do you finally see where the problem lies? Go to the source of the problem: the Fed Gov.
Banks don't enter into contracts in which it's likely they'll lose money. They only made the loans to the poor because 1) the Fed Gov told them to and 2) They knew they could sell those loans to Fannie and Freddie which had been mandated by the Clinton/Cuomo-era HUD, as a parting shot at Bush before he took office, to have over 50% of the loans they buy from banks be made to low-income and/or credit-compromised borrowers.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 01-02-2017 at 04:44 AM..
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.
'
