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.
The part that gets me is, what's up with the 16 percent who think that "things are going well in the country today"? Are they delusional or on some kind of medication?
No, Monica did. If we want to play hind-sight history here, let's have a go at it. No complaints with Clinton except it was under his watch that lending regulations started to get liberalized in a big way. This was continued by Barney Frank and others. Not to say Republicans were'nt involved (greed lures in those from all parties) but I'm sick and tired of hearing this crap about how the mortgage industry melt-down is all Bushes fault. Bad job of not predicting and stopping it-maybe. Would another president have stopped it-duobtful. Clinton stated in an interview that he wanted to pass regulations to tighten loan requirements while in his 2nd term, but fellow Dem's didn't want to. And he said Bush tried , but again Dems didn't want to. Clinton is so concerned about his legacy, he hung his own party out to dry. And he had a hand in starting this. Henry Cisnero, Clinton appointee had a big hand in this also and profited handsomely.
Now lets go to the war. In hindsight Irag was bad idea. BUT Saddam himself said he wanted countries to think he was close to getting a nuke because of his rivalry and fear of Iran or desire to aquire/defeat Iran. And what did Clinton do when Bin Laden and his cronies blew up our embassy's? Lobbed a few cruise missiles at the training camps becasue he didn't have the foresight or the balls to take more decisive action. Now I'm not saying Iraq war stopped subsequent attacks on US, but we do not have the benefit of an alternate reality to compare history with. The true reality is NO attacks on US since 9/11.
Economy- maybe another president would have stopped the housing bubble and financial sector mess. Doubt it. President Kerry would have been enjoying the benefits of a growing economy also, unless another attack on the US would have caused an earlier recession.
Quote:
If he was just pitiful & pathetic that would be bad enough but it will take a long time to undo the damage he's done to our economy and nothing can undo the lives he's ruined & destroyed. He really deserves a jail cell for retirement.
Yes it is ALL 100% Bushes fault. Congress had absolutely nothing to do with it. The Dem's are as innocent and blameless as can be. I hope Obama does well as President. I don't care for the blather from the extreme right or the extreme left. You both are eerily too similar. You are like the "clanging cymbals". Empty and full of mean-spirited attacks. Meanwhile the center-majority comprised of both parties is the true majority that wins elections and keeps re-elections possible if the candidates meet our needs.
No complaints with Clinton except it was under his watch that lending regulations started to get liberalized in a big way.
No. What started on Clinton's watch was actual enforcement of the CRA requirement that covered banks that took deposits from low- and moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods actually had to lend some of that money back into those communities. Redlining itself had been illegal since 1977, but positive enforcement of the act had been nil under both Reagan and Bush-1. LMI communities of course had credit needs all along, but with local banks and S&L's refusing to meet them, residents were forced into the arms of so-called finance companies (think payday loan shops) that charged much higher rates than conventional lenders. These extra costs of access to capital were a significant obstacle to wealth accumulation in LMI communities.
As CRA lending ramped up through the mid-90's, it was quite successful. Property values began to rise, investments in community infrastructure increased, and performance on CRA loans was better than industry averages. It turned out that CRA lending was not just good policy, it was good business. Noting such success, Clinton sought to reinforce the program by allowing GSE's to buy increasing portions of CRA-originated debt, thereby freeing up additional resources for new CRA loans. This worked well also. Fannie Mae in particular acquired substantial volumes of CRA loans, and the positive effects upon LMI communities continued to mount. Until 2001, when Bush simply curtailed positive enforcement of CRA and CRA lending began to evaporate.
Into the brink rushed unregulated mortgage brokers and so-called bank-affiliates. It was these who began writing up-front advantageous exotics and other high-cost loans into LMI (and many other) neighborhoods, and unlike either the CRA's or Fannie Mae, they didn't hold any of these notes for their own account. They sliced and diced them all into the secondary markets via the GSE's and then increasingly via various no longer existing investment banks. With the profit on both ends of this deal being dependent upon volume, concern for underwriting standards became inconsistent. At the end of the day, non-CRA lenders had LMI volumes that were more that twice those of the CRA's, more than twice the share of those non-CRA loans had been extended at high-cost terms, all CRA loans ever issud by CRA banks and S&L's performed better than LMI loans extended by all other lenders, and also better than all loans extended by all other lenders.
Bottom line is that all the supposedly liberalized loan regulations that Clinton pushed from 1993 to 2000 resulted in a pool of LMI assets that performed better overall than existing industry averages. Meanwhile, the preferentially high-cost exotics that unregulated brokers began pushing in 2001 and basically began shoveling out the door in the low interest days of 2003-2004 are exactly the loans that eventually defaulted, and because almost all of those loans had been sliced, diced, and securitized into secondary markets, it is these loans and their various brethren of unregulated origin that triggered the credit market collapse that we now try to deal with the consequences of.
SPORTSMANSHIP???? That is an attempt at a 180 spin right from the Hannity playbook....Were you one of those repub aholes that questioned my patriotism post after post in every forum I belonged to for being against the Iraq war? Were you one of those repub aholes that said "if'n you don't support Bush,you is a commie "terrist" lover"? Get a clue and lose the victim mentality as it makes you look like a chickenhawk crybaby.Sportsmanship indeed,what a laugh.Absolutely idiotic.
You don't deserve a response, but just fyi I came up with the word "sportsmanship" without the help of Hannity or anyone else. Everyone is tossing around words like "sore loser" and "sore winner" ... the next step is to refer to sportsmanship.
All I have ever said about the election of Obama is that I wish him well, I support him and hope that he can fulfill his promise to our nation. Why you have a problem over that is beyond any rational thinking.
I've only been posting on this forum since May and I'm pretty sure I have never responded to you. This will also be the last time I do because I never waste my time on people who spew the filth you've just spewed above when you obviously don't know me at all and have obviously never read posts of mine.
I am not a victim of any kind. My candidate wasn't elected. That's the way it goes in a democracy. But judging from your venomous post to me, I don't think you can possibly understand that.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,030,168 times
Reputation: 3936
Quote:
Originally Posted by McMolly
You don't deserve a response, but just fyi I came up with the word "sportsmanship" without the help of Hannity or anyone else. Everyone is tossing around words like "sore loser" and "sore winner" ... the next step is to refer to sportsmanship.
All I have ever said about the election of Obama is that I wish him well, I support him and hope that he can fulfill his promise to our nation. Why you have a problem over that is beyond any rational thinking.
I've only been posting on this forum since May and I'm pretty sure I have never responded to you. This will also be the last time I do because I never waste my time on people who spew the filth you've just spewed above when you obviously don't know me at all and have obviously never read posts of mine.
I am not a victim of any kind. My candidate wasn't elected. That's the way it goes in a democracy. But judging from your venomous post to me, I don't think you can possibly understand that.
If there's an idiot in our midst, it isn't me.
That's a matter of opinion I'd say....Had you READ my post you would have seen there was no venom in it whatsoever UNLESS you WERE one of those people.As for responding to me again,don't waste your valuable time because I won't be able to see you anyway.Say hello to irspow and shoppingcartlost for me as you share my iggy bin with them and a few more just like you.
No venom, muleskinner? Believe me I read your post ... more than once. I've had a couple of attacks on this board, but without question this was the worst. In your own words ...
Quote:
Were you one of those repub aholes that questioned my patriotism post after post in every forum I belonged to for being against the Iraq war? Were you one of those repub aholes that said "if'n you don't support Bush,you is a commie "terrist" lover"? Get a clue and lose the victim mentality as it makes you look like a chickenhawk crybaby.Sportsmanship indeed,what a laugh.Absolutely idiotic
You know I never went after you about the war because I've never posted on this board about the war. You just felt like mouthing off because you didn't like my post for some reason. That's your right and I have no problem that you disagree with me. On the contrary, it gives my stand on the issues that much more credibility.
My opinion on this board is just as valid as anyone else's and more valid than some.
But the words I highlighted above are completely uncalled for. If you have a beef with someone about how they treat you, find them and attack them directly. Don't just find someone out of the blue and attack with this garbage.
I have not shed a tear over this lost election. McCain deserved it. He ran a rotten campaign. He wasn't even my choice ... I just knew how much better he would be than Obama. I still know that, but he lost fair and sqaure and I've said that a zillion times on this forum.
So think before you spew your filth and aim it in the right direction. I've never attacked you and that removes your right to attack me.
As for the screen names you mention, I've never heard of them. And forgive me, but I have a feeling you're reading this post. And if you're not, all the better.
No. What started on Clinton's watch was actual enforcement of the CRA requirement that covered banks that took deposits from low- and moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods actually had to lend some of that money back into those communities. Redlining itself had been illegal since 1977, but positive enforcement of the act had been nil under both Reagan and Bush-1. LMI communities of course had credit needs all along, but with local banks and S&L's refusing to meet them, residents were forced into the arms of so-called finance companies (think payday loan shops) that charged much higher rates than conventional lenders. These extra costs of access to capital were a significant obstacle to wealth accumulation in LMI communities.
As CRA lending ramped up through the mid-90's, it was quite successful. Property values began to rise, investments in community infrastructure increased, and performance on CRA loans was better than industry averages. It turned out that CRA lending was not just good policy, it was good business. Noting such success, Clinton sought to reinforce the program by allowing GSE's to buy increasing portions of CRA-originated debt, thereby freeing up additional resources for new CRA loans. This worked well also. Fannie Mae in particular acquired substantial volumes of CRA loans, and the positive effects upon LMI communities continued to mount. Until 2001, when Bush simply curtailed positive enforcement of CRA and CRA lending began to evaporate.
Into the brink rushed unregulated mortgage brokers and so-called bank-affiliates. It was these who began writing up-front advantageous exotics and other high-cost loans into LMI (and many other) neighborhoods, and unlike either the CRA's or Fannie Mae, they didn't hold any of these notes for their own account. They sliced and diced them all into the secondary markets via the GSE's and then increasingly via various no longer existing investment banks. With the profit on both ends of this deal being dependent upon volume, concern for underwriting standards became inconsistent. At the end of the day, non-CRA lenders had LMI volumes that were more that twice those of the CRA's, more than twice the share of those non-CRA loans had been extended at high-cost terms, all CRA loans ever issud by CRA banks and S&L's performed better than LMI loans extended by all other lenders, and also better than all loans extended by all other lenders.
Bottom line is that all the supposedly liberalized loan regulations that Clinton pushed from 1993 to 2000 resulted in a pool of LMI assets that performed better overall than existing industry averages. Meanwhile, the preferentially high-cost exotics that unregulated brokers began pushing in 2001 and basically began shoveling out the door in the low interest days of 2003-2004 are exactly the loans that eventually defaulted, and because almost all of those loans had been sliced, diced, and securitized into secondary markets, it is these loans and their various brethren of unregulated origin that triggered the credit market collapse that we now try to deal with the consequences of.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,030,168 times
Reputation: 3936
Quote:
Originally Posted by McMolly
No venom, muleskinner? Believe me I read your post ... more than once. I've had a couple of attacks on this board, but without question this was the worst. In your own words ...
You know I never went after you about the war because I've never posted on this board about the war. You just felt like mouthing off because you didn't like my post for some reason. That's your right and I have no problem that you disagree with me. On the contrary, it gives my stand on the issues that much more credibility.
My opinion on this board is just as valid as anyone else's and more valid than some.
But the words I highlighted above are completely uncalled for. If you have a beef with someone about how they treat you, find them and attack them directly. Don't just find someone out of the blue and attack with this garbage.
I have not shed a tear over this lost election. McCain deserved it. He ran a rotten campaign. He wasn't even my choice ... I just knew how much better he would be than Obama. I still know that, but he lost fair and sqaure and I've said that a zillion times on this forum.
So think before you spew your filth and aim it in the right direction. I've never attacked you and that removes your right to attack me.
As for the screen names you mention, I've never heard of them. And forgive me, but I have a feeling you're reading this post. And if you're not, all the better.
You are right,I am reading it because I was to lazy to iggy you.
WERE you one of those people was the question I asked.If NOT then the post can be used to show you WHY I think the use of the word S P O R T S M A N S H I P was the wrong word to use on a guy like me who listened to neoCON bullsht for 8 yrs.I have NO patience or sportsmanship left to give right wingers.I hate them each and every one because no matter how much I tried to talk reasonable to them over the last 8 yrs I always heard the "Amuricuh,love it or leave it" or "Why don't you move to Russia,they don't like Bush either" or my all time favorite "*terrist* lover "......No,I have no sportsmanship left for these retarded,inbred freaks,so if you just happened to get caught in the crossfire of my hatred of these people, I apologize,BUTif you are a neoCON just playing victim then you can feel free to stick it where the sun don't shine because we OWN you for the next four years and I for one intend to give as good as I got and the hell with sportsmanship.I've still been to lazy to iggy you,so if you deem me worthy for a response,fire away.
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.
. I hope Obama does well as President. I don't care for the blather from the extreme right or the extreme left. You both are eerily too similar. You are like the "clanging cymbals". Empty and full of mean-spirited attacks. Meanwhile the center-majority comprised of both parties is the true majority that wins elections and keeps re-elections possible if the candidates meet our needs.
