• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

Gill said:
First, if you truly believed that, you wouldn't link to sites like Media Matters.

Second, McClatchey has a well known liberal bias.
Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point.

As Boo pointed out, just because a source has a general bias doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong or inaccurate. It does suggest that one might take a little extra care in fact checking them.
 
Conservative said:
The question is how can anyone support the liberal belief system and not support the foundation upon which this country was built which is individual wealth creation and equal opportunity, not equal outcome and no consequences for failure?
In the liberal world it is all about equal outcome and not just about equal opportunity. Liberals don't seem to understand the concept.

No one forced individuals to sign on contracts that had a escalator clause in them. People bought homes that they couldn't afford. Freddie and Fannie bought toxic mortgages. There are consequences for poor choices and that just doesn't fit the liberal ideology. Creating dependence is what liberals always do thus retaining power.
Click to expand...

No one forced anyone to buy a house that they couldn't afford, nor to make a loan that enabled someone to buy a house that they couldn't afford.

However, a lot of people made a lot of money doing just that before the whole house of cards collapsed. It was much like putting money on a roll of the dice, except that the money on the table was mostly someone else's money.

The role the government should have played, but didn't, was to have outlawed the outrageous gamble with leveraged money.
 
Conservative said:
The question is how can anyone support the liberal belief system and not support the foundation upon which this country was built which is individual wealth creation and equal opportunity, not equal outcome and no consequences for failure?
In the liberal world it is all about equal outcome and not just about equal opportunity. Liberals don't seem to understand the concept.

No one forced individuals to sign on contracts that had a escalator clause in them. People bought homes that they couldn't afford. Freddie and Fannie bought toxic mortgages. There are consequences for poor choices and that just doesn't fit the liberal ideology. Creating dependence is what liberals always do thus retaining power.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced you understand the foundation this country was built on. Our founding fathers, for their time, we quite progressive. Had they been more conservative, they would have accepted Brittians taxsation without representation (not no taxes btw).

You make many hyperbolic leaps in reasoning, and seem to be fixated on liberal versus conservative thought. We actually need both, as both serve a purpose.
 
AdamT said:
Thanks for making my point.

As Boo pointed out, just because a source has a general bias doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong or inaccurate. It does suggest that one might take a little extra care in fact checking them.
Click to expand...

Did you take the time to "fact check" the sources that you proclaimed:

The sources you are using are out-and-out right wing mouthpieces.
Click to expand...

or........ are your rules for everyone but yourself ???

were they "wrong or inaccurate" ?? Don't bother answering. We all know you probably didn't bother to look at them, much less check our the veracity of their claims.


in other words, once again, I say you are a hypocrite.

Thanks for making MY point.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No one forced anyone to buy a house that they couldn't afford, nor to make a loan that enabled someone to buy a house that they couldn't afford.

However, a lot of people made a lot of money doing just that before the whole house of cards collapsed. It was much like putting money on a roll of the dice, except that the money on the table was mostly someone else's money.

The role the government should have played, but didn't, was to have outlawed the outrageous gamble with leveraged money.
Click to expand...

Actually, banks were forced to give loans to many people that should never have gotten home loans.
 
Gill said:
Did you take the time to "fact check" the sources that you proclaimed:



or........ are your rules for everyone but yourself ???

were they "wrong or inaccurate" ?? Don't bother answering. We all know you probably didn't bother to look at them, much less check our the veracity of their claims.


in other words, once again, I say you are a hypocrite.

Thanks for making MY point.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've actually read up quite a lot on this subject, including a book that examined the roots of the financial meltdown at length (Kevin Phillips, "Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism"). The sources I cited above include a mainstream newspaper, a government investigation report, and a report by the Federal Reserve, which are all in agreement on the salient points. Of course I also read the Forbes article, which in fact doesn't contradict any of the main points.

So no, I'm not a hypocrite. But keep drinking the Koolaid. I'm sure it's delicious.
 
Gill said:
Actually, banks were forced to give loans to many people that should never have gotten home loans.
Click to expand...

Actually they weren't. Actually the CRA itself specifically requires the banks NOT to issue any loans that they judge the mortgagee will be unable to repay.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not convinced you understand the foundation this country was built on. Our founding fathers, for their time, we quite progressive. Had they been more conservative, they would have accepted Brittians taxsation without representation (not no taxes btw).

You make many hyperbolic leaps in reasoning, and seem to be fixated on liberal versus conservative thought. We actually need both, as both serve a purpose.
Click to expand...

Don't think so as I don't recall the Founders promoting a large central govt. and nanny state. With the Founders it was about people helping people, not the government taking from people to redistribute to someone else. Self reliance was paramount with the Founders and when people couldn't help themselves then the community would step in.

We have a 15 trillion dollar debt today and 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt. Do you think that our Founders would have agreed with either?
 
AdamT said:
Yes, I've actually read up quite a lot on this subject, including a book that examined the roots of the financial meltdown at length (Kevin Phillips, "Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism"). The sources I cited above include a mainstream newspaper, a government investigation report, and a report by the Federal Reserve, which are all in agreement on the salient points. Of course I also read the Forbes article, which in fact doesn't contradict any of the main points.

So no, I'm not a hypocrite. But keep drinking the Koolaid. I'm sure it's delicious.
Click to expand...

so, you claim to have fact checked them, but........... the only comment you had was that they were right wing whacko mouthpiece sources. No comments on what was wrong with their conclusions, or comments on anything they discussed for that matter.

Your claim has no credibility.
 
AdamT said:
Actually they weren't. Actually the CRA itself specifically requires the banks NOT to issue any loans that they judge the mortgagee will be unable to repay.
Click to expand...

Actually, they were:

On a parallel track was the Community Reinvestment Act. New CRA regulations in 1995 required banks to demonstrate that they were making mortgage loans to underserved communities, which inevitably included borrowers whose credit standing did not qualify them for a conventional mortgage loan.

To meet this new requirement, insured banks--like the GSEs--had to reduce the quality of the mortgages they would make or acquire. As the enforcers of CRA, the regulators themselves were co-opted into this process, approving lending practices that they would otherwise have scorned. The erosion of traditional mortgage standards had begun.
Click to expand...
A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble - Forbes.com
 
Conservative said:
Don't think so as I don't recall the Founders promoting a large central govt. and nanny state. With the Founders it was about people helping people, not the government taking from people to redistribute to someone else. Self reliance was paramount with the Founders and when people couldn't help themselves then the community would step in.

We have a 15 trillion dollar debt today and 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt. Do you think that our Founders would have agreed with either?
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced we have a nanny state. i think that's your misperceptions. Still, we started with the arcitles of confederation, but found it had too weak a central government, and moved to strengthen the federal government with our constititution.

Again, i'm not convinced you understand the foundation of this country.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not convinced we have a nanny state. i think that's your misperceptions. Still, we started with the arcitles of confederation, but found it had too weak a central government, and moved to strengthen the federal government with our constititution.

Again, i'm not convinced you understand the foundation of this country.
Click to expand...

Really? no nanny state? How many people are now dependent on the govt. for food stamps? How many are dependent on unemployment insurance? How many are dependent on the govt. for healthcare programs? Our Founders understood personal responsibility and didn't have a social safety net like we have today. They believed in self reliance and individual responsibility. None of those are supported by liberals today.

I have seen no evidence that you understand the foundation of this country.
 
Conservative said:
Really? no nanny state? How many people are now dependent on the govt. for food stamps? How many are dependent on unemployment insurance? How many are dependent on the govt. for healthcare programs? Our Founders understood personal responsibility and didn't have a social safety net like we have today. They believed in self reliance and individual responsibility. None of those are supported by liberals today.

I have seen no evidence that you understand the foundation of this country.
Click to expand...

A lot less than aren't. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
A lot less than aren't. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

A growing number each and every day and the liberal ideology requires dependence and continue to promote the benefits of big govt. Sorry, but that is reality
 
Conservative said:
A growing number each and every day and the liberal ideology requires dependence and continue to promote the benefits of big govt. Sorry, but that is reality
Click to expand...

That would be a sign there are more and n more poor people and not a nanny state, if in fact you're correct, which is not a given.

Not sure you know much about reality either btw. :coffeepap
 
Gill said:
Actually, they were:


A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble - Forbes.com
Click to expand...

And thanks for making my point again -- this time about the importance of fact checking.

The best source to consult with respect to what the CRA does or does not require is the CRA statute itself.

12 C.F.R. PART 228—COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT (REGULATION BB)

s 228.1(d): Safe and sound operations.

This part and the CRA do not require a bank to make loans or investments or to provide services that are inconsistent with safe and sound operations. To the contrary, the Board anticipates banks can meet the standards of this part with safe and sound loans, investments, and services on which the banks expect to make a profit. Banks are permitted and encouraged to develop and apply flexible underwriting standards for loans that benefit low- or moderate-income geographies or individuals, only if consistent with safe and sound operations.
Click to expand...

PART 228—COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT (REGULATION BB) :: PART 228--COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT (REGULATION BB) :: CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM :: Title 12 - Banks and Banking :: Code of Federal Regulations :: Regulations :: Law :: Justia
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
And thanks for making my point again -- this time about the importance of fact checking.

The best source to consult with respect to what the CRA does or does not require is the CRA statute itself.



PART 228—COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT (REGULATION BB) :: PART 228--COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT (REGULATION BB) :: CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM :: Title 12 - Banks and Banking :: Code of Federal Regulations :: Regulations :: Law :: Justia
Click to expand...

You're right about one thing, fact checking is important. You should try it sometime.
Section 228.29 Effect of CRA performance on applications
Provides that the Board takes account of a bank's record of CRA performance when evaluating specified applications for deposit facilities. Explains that in considering the bank's CRA performance in such an application, the Board takes account of any views expressed by interested parties that are submitted in accordance with the Board's Rules of Procedure. States that a bank's record of performance may be the basis for denying or conditioning approval of one of the specified types of application. Finally, cross-references definitions in the Bank Holding Company Act.
Click to expand...

FRB: Regulation BB: Compliance Guide

This is how many banks were blackmailed. Whenever they wanted to expand or make other changes to their charter, they had to be approved by the Federal Reserve. Any community organization near the bank could object on the grounds that the bank had not provided enough low income loans. In most cases, the bank was forced to settle by giving subprime loans, usually hundreds of million dollars.
 
Gill said:
You're right about one thing, fact checking is important. You should try it sometime.


FRB: Regulation BB: Compliance Guide

This is how many banks were blackmailed. Whenever they wanted to expand or make other changes to their charter, they had to be approved by the Federal Reserve. Any community organization near the bank could object on the grounds that the bank had not provided enough low income loans. In most cases, the bank was forced to settle by giving subprime loans, usually hundreds of million dollars.
Click to expand...

I guess I missed the fact part of your response. Did you unintentionally leave out the citation?

Not really. Because the fact is that there aren't, and never have been, quotas under the CRA. Banks simply have to establish that they complied with the statutory requirements of the Act to stay off the **** list.

CRA Regulations - What Does the Community Reinvestment Act Regulate?
 
AdamT said:
I guess I missed the fact part of your response. Did you unintentionally leave out the citation?

Not really. Because the fact is that there aren't, and never have been, quotas under the CRA. Banks simply have to establish that they complied with the statutory requirements of the Act to stay off the **** list.

CRA Regulations - What Does the Community Reinvestment Act Regulate?
Click to expand...

In 1977, when the CRA was established those were the rules. However over time there were other challenges against lending money according top the ability to repay the loan.

This is one such successful challenge forcing banks to lend money not according to their ability to repay the loan but on the color of their skin or ethnic background.

Scroll down and you´ll see the name of a well known "community organizer",

Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
 
AdamT said:
I guess I missed the fact part of your response. Did you unintentionally leave out the citation?

Not really. Because the fact is that there aren't, and never have been, quotas under the CRA. Banks simply have to establish that they complied with the statutory requirements of the Act to stay off the **** list.

CRA Regulations - What Does the Community Reinvestment Act Regulate?
Click to expand...

Here's one fact you neglected to "check". Where have I ever said "quota" ???

Banks were graded on the number of low income loans they made. Those grades could be taken into account if the bank filed for a merger. Community activists could file a protest during the public opinion portion of the process.

No, there were no quotas, just a LOT of incentives for banks to make sure they gave plenty of low income loans, whether the borrowers were qualified or not.
 
Grant said:
In 1977, when the CRA was established those were the rules. However over time there were other challenges against lending money according top the ability to repay the loan.

This is one such successful challenge forcing banks to lend money not according to their ability to repay the loan but on the color of their skin or ethnic background.

Scroll down and you´ll see the name of a well known "community organizer",

Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
Click to expand...

CRA was *always* intended to address redlining. No change there. The mission was always to expand home ownership in traditionally underserved neighborhoods. And of course forcing banks to lend to people who couldn't repay the loans would be counterproductive to that goal. That's why it didn't happen.
 
Gill said:
Banks were graded on the number of low income loans they made.
Click to expand...

Yes? Do you have a cite for that proposition?
 
Grant said:
In 1977, when the CRA was established those were the rules. However over time there were other challenges against lending money according top the ability to repay the loan.

This is one such successful challenge forcing banks to lend money not according to their ability to repay the loan but on the color of their skin or ethnic background.

Scroll down and you´ll see the name of a well known "community organizer",

Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
Click to expand...

bcp0901_t2a.gif


Source
 
AdamT said:
CRA was *always* intended to address redlining. No change there. The mission was always to expand home ownership in traditionally underserved neighborhoods. And of course forcing banks to lend to people who couldn't repay the loans would be counterproductive to that goal. That's why it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

In fact it did happen, and repeatedly. You can do the research if you´re interested in the subject but here´s a start.

LiveLeak.com - Obama: Giving loans to people that cant afford them A good Idea!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom