reply to post by plumranch
Say I give you that. I'll just allow it to slide, even though I disagree, fine, it's the democrats fault.
Even then, the Republicans have had Congressional control for 12 out of the past 16 years, and both Executive and Congressional control for 6 out of
the past 8 years.
If they couldn't get the job done with that, then you have no room to complain.
How Obama Got Elected, page 14
privacy
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 06:41 PM by plumranch
reply to post by Irish M1ck
Say I give you that. I'll just allow it to slide, even though I disagree, fine, it's the democrats fault.
Did any of you ever watch one of the old rants that Barney Frank did on U Tube when he was defending CRA and the subprime mortgage loans? There were several U Tubes on him. But good old Barney called the rath of God down on the Republicans or anyone else that challenged his sacred subprime loans. You were a mean lousy bigot if you opposed Barney.
So that's what the opposition was up against. The media always sided with Barney also and insured that nothing got changed.
I hope old Barney gets HIS one of these days soon! He certainly deserves it! He needs to go cook somewhere for all the harm he and his ilk have done to humanity!
Barney is chairman of the powerful House Banking Committee, BTW, and he is LHAO at what he continues to get away with! Great guy!
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 06:42 PM by JohnnyElohim
reply to post by avingard
This hasn't really been my experience, though. I know a lot of people who voted for Obama for many different reasons. Some better than others, mind you, but still: reasons. Perhaps this isn't the case with you, but I do sometimes wonder when I hear this whether that's code speak for "they are not voting for him for any reasons I agree with/empathize with/relate to." Which is a fair thing to say, but has quite a different meaning.
Most of them just have no idea why they're voting for him.
This hasn't really been my experience, though. I know a lot of people who voted for Obama for many different reasons. Some better than others, mind you, but still: reasons. Perhaps this isn't the case with you, but I do sometimes wonder when I hear this whether that's code speak for "they are not voting for him for any reasons I agree with/empathize with/relate to." Which is a fair thing to say, but has quite a different meaning.
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 07:05 PM by Irish M1ck
reply to post by plumranch
Right, but you know what they call that?
An excuse. Would you excuse the democrats for the same? Surely not. In fact, if anything happens while the democrats are in control, my guess is you'll be the first in line to blame them.
You can make excuses all you want, but republicans have had plenty of control and power to make the necessary changes. If they weren't able to gain enough support, then they didn't work hard enough to get democrats and independents to cross over.
Any responsibility you place on the democrats should be equally shared with the republicans, if not more to them since they've had more control.
Right, but you know what they call that?
An excuse. Would you excuse the democrats for the same? Surely not. In fact, if anything happens while the democrats are in control, my guess is you'll be the first in line to blame them.
You can make excuses all you want, but republicans have had plenty of control and power to make the necessary changes. If they weren't able to gain enough support, then they didn't work hard enough to get democrats and independents to cross over.
Any responsibility you place on the democrats should be equally shared with the republicans, if not more to them since they've had more control.
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 07:08 PM by Drawing Distractions
reply to post by plumranch
LOL there you go again!!! Listen I worked in the industry for many years and Subprime wasn't a problem at all for that period of time you are referencing... if it was, this would of happened long ago when Bill Clinton was President. In fact it was almost underutilized for what it was made for, to make purchasing a home for lower incomes much more accessible... this is not a horrible idea, unless its abused like it was these last few years. The people who had the money to lend had horrible intentions of making an enormous profit off of unwitting borrowers who couldn''t truly dissect the nuances and intricateness of the mortgage industry and the banking industry as a whole... while purposely putting people in bad loans, they were selling them off in MBS packages. You should look into the Glass-Steagall Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. With those acts of deregulation the banks were able to package these unqualified loans that couldn't fly solo with insurance packages and other investment deals in mortgage backed securities, this way the faulty loan can be well hidden. They were sold on the speculation (and this is a huge part of the mess, which was a big part of those two deregulation bills I mentioned earlier) that they would continue to raise in value along with the housing markets at the time. They knew very well that what they were putting together was only garbage, but they wanted to make a quick buck because now they could. Look, what we are seeing is an increase in the loans that are unconventional, 2-3 year ARMS and Neg Ams are not loans that should be pushed onto anyone looking to own a home for the long haul... and this is what they were doing. There was a flooding of these loans and when the bubble burst these loans would only create another devastating burst. You know exactly how this scenario is playing out, and I've been personally saying this was going to happen for the last 4 years now. What do you think happens when you pay below your principal and interest? You increase the loan amount!!! What happens when your loan amount is more than the amount of what the home is worth??? You are backwards on your mortgage... and you can't sell the home unless you come up with the difference. Why did they put people who shouldn't even qualify for these types of loans in these situations???? That should of NEVER happened... and it didn't start happening until interest rates were at a 45 year low. I want to point out also, people with mid 500 FICO scores weren't getting loans for 400k in the 90's... that wasn't happening. That was happening while Bush was in office. Look I'm not trying to say the Democrats are any better, all I am saying is you neglect the main perpetrators in this mess, which is really messed up. You in fact try to blame the minority while there was a visible majority directing all this deregulation. I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat... I am far from any party. I am my own self, I do my own thinking and I do it on a case by case basis. If you are pushing something that is obviously bearing bias I am going to point it out. Its really is odd how you come to this site and blame people who are being used as the problem, and seemingly forgiving the big banking industry like they were the victims being held at gun point by the poor and stupid who couldn't get a prime loan... THATS ABSURD!!!!
LOL there you go again!!! Listen I worked in the industry for many years and Subprime wasn't a problem at all for that period of time you are referencing... if it was, this would of happened long ago when Bill Clinton was President. In fact it was almost underutilized for what it was made for, to make purchasing a home for lower incomes much more accessible... this is not a horrible idea, unless its abused like it was these last few years. The people who had the money to lend had horrible intentions of making an enormous profit off of unwitting borrowers who couldn''t truly dissect the nuances and intricateness of the mortgage industry and the banking industry as a whole... while purposely putting people in bad loans, they were selling them off in MBS packages. You should look into the Glass-Steagall Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. With those acts of deregulation the banks were able to package these unqualified loans that couldn't fly solo with insurance packages and other investment deals in mortgage backed securities, this way the faulty loan can be well hidden. They were sold on the speculation (and this is a huge part of the mess, which was a big part of those two deregulation bills I mentioned earlier) that they would continue to raise in value along with the housing markets at the time. They knew very well that what they were putting together was only garbage, but they wanted to make a quick buck because now they could. Look, what we are seeing is an increase in the loans that are unconventional, 2-3 year ARMS and Neg Ams are not loans that should be pushed onto anyone looking to own a home for the long haul... and this is what they were doing. There was a flooding of these loans and when the bubble burst these loans would only create another devastating burst. You know exactly how this scenario is playing out, and I've been personally saying this was going to happen for the last 4 years now. What do you think happens when you pay below your principal and interest? You increase the loan amount!!! What happens when your loan amount is more than the amount of what the home is worth??? You are backwards on your mortgage... and you can't sell the home unless you come up with the difference. Why did they put people who shouldn't even qualify for these types of loans in these situations???? That should of NEVER happened... and it didn't start happening until interest rates were at a 45 year low. I want to point out also, people with mid 500 FICO scores weren't getting loans for 400k in the 90's... that wasn't happening. That was happening while Bush was in office. Look I'm not trying to say the Democrats are any better, all I am saying is you neglect the main perpetrators in this mess, which is really messed up. You in fact try to blame the minority while there was a visible majority directing all this deregulation. I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat... I am far from any party. I am my own self, I do my own thinking and I do it on a case by case basis. If you are pushing something that is obviously bearing bias I am going to point it out. Its really is odd how you come to this site and blame people who are being used as the problem, and seemingly forgiving the big banking industry like they were the victims being held at gun point by the poor and stupid who couldn't get a prime loan... THATS ABSURD!!!!
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 08:37 PM by plumranch
reply to post by Drawing Distractions
Subprime wasn't a problem at all for that period of time you are referencing... if it was, this would of happened long ago when Bill Clinton was President.
Katrina is what caused the problem to surface! And contrary to what a lot of liberals on the Gulf coast are saying, Bush didn't cause Katrina. LOL.
But Katrina caused damage to millions of houses that weren't insured so their owners walked away from their mortgages and defaulted. After that it snowballed.
CRA REQUIRED banks to make loans to people who DID NOT QUALIFY for loans. If you were in the business then you must remember! Realators then were shaking their heads wondering why banks were making these risky loans! Then Katrina hit and SHTF. The rest is history. It just happened on Bush's watch. Too bad for him and too bad for the rest of America and the world!
If it wasn't for CRA and Katrina we'd probably be sitting around fat and happy and toasting Bush! LOL.
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 08:46 PM by Irish M1ck
reply to post by plumranch
Don't you think that would be lack of regulation? Why would anyone in NO be allowed to have a mortgage on property that did not have hurricane/flood insurance?
And I doubt we'd be toasting Bush. There's still the little fact of the Patriot Act, domestic spying, unwarranted invasion of a foreign country, terrible diplomacy, disregard for the Geneva Conventions and Habeas Corpus, torture, and detaining suspects without trial.
To name a few.
[edit on 24-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]
Don't you think that would be lack of regulation? Why would anyone in NO be allowed to have a mortgage on property that did not have hurricane/flood insurance?
And I doubt we'd be toasting Bush. There's still the little fact of the Patriot Act, domestic spying, unwarranted invasion of a foreign country, terrible diplomacy, disregard for the Geneva Conventions and Habeas Corpus, torture, and detaining suspects without trial.
To name a few.
[edit on 24-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 08:47 PM by plumranch
reply to post by Irish M1ck
You wrote: "Any responsibility you place on the democrats should be equally shared with the republicans, if not more to them since they've had more control."
The lesson is that the Democrats have learned and learned well that they can get by with anything by accusing their opposition of bigotry, that they don't care about the poor, the blacks, the minorities, the children, the sick the whomever (who are their constituants). The opposition rolls over, the country suffers.
In this case the cost was about 8 Trillion dollars and rising. When will we learn?
You wrote: "Any responsibility you place on the democrats should be equally shared with the republicans, if not more to them since they've had more control."
The lesson is that the Democrats have learned and learned well that they can get by with anything by accusing their opposition of bigotry, that they don't care about the poor, the blacks, the minorities, the children, the sick the whomever (who are their constituants). The opposition rolls over, the country suffers.
In this case the cost was about 8 Trillion dollars and rising. When will we learn?
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 08:50 PM by gimme_some_truth
Originally posted by grover
reply to post by jsobecky
A large portion? Really?
You insult your fellow citizens and discount their votes with such nonsense.
There are idiots everywhere... some post on threads like this one. But given the issues and interest this election cycle had... this year's voters were far more engaged than you give them credit for... whether they voted for Obama or not.
Don't insult your fellow Americans by suggesting that the only people who were truly informed reflect your opinions...
because that is the implication.
Well said my friend. This was a very important election. More people have been engaged in this election because they were afraid of a continuence of the last 8 years.
For anyone to even suggest that just because a person disagrees, they must all be uninformed is ludacris. Fortunatley I think MOST people know better than that.
many republicans decided to vote for the democrat. SO I guess they went from informed to uninformed? They some how got brain damage and voted for the wrong person because they are now uneducated?
It makes no sense does it grover? For god sake, I and many others I know Voted for Obama. ALL of us watched every single debate, listened to every single speech from each candidate, (Tivo is great isnt it?) We were very well informed, wheter some of you like it or not.
To anyone and all who suggest that Obama won simply because his supporters were "uninformed" I have two words. SOUR GRAPES.
Well said grover, well said.
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 09:26 PM by Drawing Distractions
Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by Drawing Distractions
Subprime wasn't a problem at all for that period of time you are referencing... if it was, this would of happened long ago when Bill Clinton was President.
Katrina is what caused the problem to surface! And contrary to what a lot of liberals on the Gulf coast are saying, Bush didn't cause Katrina. LOL.
But Katrina caused damage to millions of houses that weren't insured so their owners walked away from their mortgages and defaulted. After that it snowballed.
CRA REQUIRED banks to make loans to people who DID NOT QUALIFY for loans. If you were in the business then you must remember! Realators then were shaking their heads wondering why banks were making these risky loans! Then Katrina hit and SHTF. The rest is history. It just happened on Bush's watch. Too bad for him and too bad for the rest of America and the world!
If it wasn't for CRA and Katrina we'd probably be sitting around fat and happy and toasting Bush! LOL.
See that right there proves you don't know what your talking about... first off most of all the foreclosures taking place are in the markets where we saw homeownership skyrocket... that would be Nevada (primarily Las Vegas) Arizona, Florida and California. Don't get me wrong, other states are seeing record numbers of foreclosures as well, but these are the markets that make up the majority of the foreclosures. First of all, why are you even mentioning something like Katrina??? Are you losing your bearings on the conversation?? You blame Katrina on the fact that people can't afford the mortgages they were sold? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I see you're trying to be a comedian... Katrina wasn't Bush's fault... but his response was what he should be laid at blame for. He's no leader, he's just a bubble boy with strings. He appointed Brownie at FEMA and we lost scores of lives because we had no system to help those who couldn't save themselves... but forget this spin about Katrina, that just shows you how brainwashed you are... you actually revel in Bush's presidency... Oh how I've been waiting for people like you to feel the problems I've felt and seen over the last 8 years. I'm really glad Obama is president now, just for the fact that all you Bushie supporters can wallow in the mess you've created!!! I knew once Bush won the GOP nomination and if he became president he would ruin our country... now we're at the brink.. what a surprise!!!! Enjoy these 4 and hopefully 8 years under Obama...!!! You of all the people deserve it the most!!!!
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 09:48 PM by Drawing Distractions
reply to post by plumranch
LOL your kidding about how the banks were forced to make loans, right??? And then they were told to package them up into MBS and then sell them in the open market? LOL...!!! You don't seem to realize, I witnessed this on a daily basis first hand. There was not ONE Realtor who ever questioned the fact that a risky loan was going through... the only things they questioned was why it wasn't being done fast enough!!! They were making a large amount of money, and with this current capitalistic society we breed that type of greed. You seem in disbelief about how a banking institution has no ethical responsibility when it comes to loosening lending standards. You don't even know how bad it was... people who were obviously qualified to go into a prime loan were being sold into subprime loans... but those with that type of credit actually understood how the system works and obviously steered clear from those types of deals... but not all of them were that fortunate. Subprime was a different beast all together... from the types of programs they initiated to the fees of the loan itself... because they were loaning money to people with unworthy credit they charged up the arse on the front AND back of the loan. This was happening everywhere... big banks and mom and pop shops that popped up in the thousands during the markets boom. Take that mentality of greed and the ingredients I just explained to you and multiply that by the thousands... this is the outcome you get. You have no way of running around it... there is nothing in any document that says you have to give people a 2 year fixed that will balloon over 3% or more after the fixed period ends, or to put them in a loan that would create a negative amortization on the balance itself. There were standards and practices before Bush came into office... after that those practices went away, and they were left at their own devices. You've been looking in the wrong place for the last couple of months... why don't you actually research what we currently have set up in our economic situation.
LOL your kidding about how the banks were forced to make loans, right??? And then they were told to package them up into MBS and then sell them in the open market? LOL...!!! You don't seem to realize, I witnessed this on a daily basis first hand. There was not ONE Realtor who ever questioned the fact that a risky loan was going through... the only things they questioned was why it wasn't being done fast enough!!! They were making a large amount of money, and with this current capitalistic society we breed that type of greed. You seem in disbelief about how a banking institution has no ethical responsibility when it comes to loosening lending standards. You don't even know how bad it was... people who were obviously qualified to go into a prime loan were being sold into subprime loans... but those with that type of credit actually understood how the system works and obviously steered clear from those types of deals... but not all of them were that fortunate. Subprime was a different beast all together... from the types of programs they initiated to the fees of the loan itself... because they were loaning money to people with unworthy credit they charged up the arse on the front AND back of the loan. This was happening everywhere... big banks and mom and pop shops that popped up in the thousands during the markets boom. Take that mentality of greed and the ingredients I just explained to you and multiply that by the thousands... this is the outcome you get. You have no way of running around it... there is nothing in any document that says you have to give people a 2 year fixed that will balloon over 3% or more after the fixed period ends, or to put them in a loan that would create a negative amortization on the balance itself. There were standards and practices before Bush came into office... after that those practices went away, and they were left at their own devices. You've been looking in the wrong place for the last couple of months... why don't you actually research what we currently have set up in our economic situation.
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 10:53 PM by plumranch
reply to post by Irish M1ck
Don't you think that would be lack of regulation? Why would anyone in NO be allowed to have a mortgage on property that did not have hurricane/flood insurance?
I have a feeling you are about to tell me.
But there is this Report: La. More Insured than any Other State for Flooding which say the overall rate of flood insurance was 64% in LA.
The LA area was the worst hit in terms of homes lost.
I live about 5000 miles away from NO. Not my area of interest.
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 11:02 PM by Irish M1ck
reply to post by plumranch
No, I am not about to tell you. It's ridiculous. If you are going to have a mortgage, you need proper insurance.
No one is going to give me a car loan unless I have insurance, nor am I allowed to drive.
No, I am not about to tell you. It's ridiculous. If you are going to have a mortgage, you need proper insurance.
No one is going to give me a car loan unless I have insurance, nor am I allowed to drive.
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 11:08 PM by Jenna
reply to post by Irish M1ck
Not being legally allowed to do something doesn't necessarily stop some from doing it anyway. Legally you can't drive without insurance, but many do anyway. Legally you can't build on to your house without a permit, but many do anyway. Legally you can't drink under 21, but many do anyway. Just cause it isn't legal, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Not being legally allowed to do something doesn't necessarily stop some from doing it anyway. Legally you can't drive without insurance, but many do anyway. Legally you can't build on to your house without a permit, but many do anyway. Legally you can't drink under 21, but many do anyway. Just cause it isn't legal, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Breaking News: Judge Doesn\'t Rule, Secretary of State Doesn\'t Agree - Obama NOT off
Posted 16 days ago with 39 member flags
Posted 16 days ago with 39 member flags
On why America is in denial and Ron Paul will not be elected
Posted 18 days ago with 21 member flags
Posted 18 days ago with 21 member flags
As of feb 9th, Canada\'s own version of SOPA: Bill C-11 will kill more of your freedom
Posted 14 days ago with 11 member flags
Posted 14 days ago with 11 member flags
Councilman wants sheriff to stop urging people to get pistol permits
Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags
ATS is not as awake as it should be. You might still be sleeping...
Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags
Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Jesus' death... standard Roman execution or sacrifice for sins?
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 5 minutes ago
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 5 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 11 hours ago, 33 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 11 hours ago, 33 flags
CPAC; Ron Paul won 2 years in a row; they change to electronic voting and he comes in 4th today?
US Political Madness, Posted 9 hours ago, 28 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 9 hours ago, 28 flags
ATS Live: 96: Super powers, Falklands Woes, Stan Deyo Interview, Syria, Telepathy, The Devils Chord.
ATS Live, Posted 13 hours ago, 19 flags
ATS Live, Posted 13 hours ago, 19 flags
Book of Thoth. Secret Societies. truth seekers This is a good read!
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 11 hours ago, 18 flags
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 11 hours ago, 18 flags
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 15 hours ago, 16 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 15 hours ago, 16 flags
The One Party System replaces the Two Party system in the U.S.
Above Politics, Posted 16 hours ago, 14 flags
Above Politics, Posted 16 hours ago, 14 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 15 hours ago, 135 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 15 hours ago, 135 replies
First thread, Possible Ghost picture I took myself, Would appreciate your opinion on this.
Paranormal Studies, Posted 12 hours ago, 77 replies
Paranormal Studies, Posted 12 hours ago, 77 replies
Why Argentina WILL Invade the Falklands & How Iran are Involved
General Conspiracies, Posted 15 hours ago, 74 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 15 hours ago, 74 replies
Second most devastating oil spill? Massive oil spill in Venezuela
Fragile Earth, Posted 17 hours ago, 52 replies
Fragile Earth, Posted 17 hours ago, 52 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.431 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.431 seconds
