(Liberals are back at work, trying to repeat the financial crisis!) Obama admin pushing banks to offer sub-prime mortgages again

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 6:31 PM GMT
    ...The kind of federal economic interference agenda that liberals live for, and yet they will try to find every way possible to blame the banks for pursuing bad practices, even though they are the ones continually pressuring the banks to engage in the very risky business which puts them in jeopardy and ultimately caused the last great subprime mortgage crisis (while conveniently singling out "sheer greed" as the only cause).

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_20/b4228031594062.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 7:22 PM GMT
    While I'm so deep in the financial services industry that some of my liberal friends might think I'm only a shill, I still can't buy this one. I hardly think that the credit crisis was caused by banks trying to comply with their CRA obligations. Doesn't even pass the sniff test.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 7:28 PM GMT
    From the article at the BOTTOM of it in BOLD! (thats the way Businessweek wanted it)


    "The bottom line: Lenders have been caught off guard by stepped-up enforcement of laws to prevent discrimination against minorities and the poor."


    Knock the crap off mock.. its a pathetic show of stupidity.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    May 11, 2011 7:31 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said...The kind of federal economic interference agenda that liberals live for, and yet they will try to find every way possible to blame the banks for pursuing bad practices, even though they are the ones continually pressuring the banks to engage in the very risky business which puts them in jeopardy and ultimately caused the last great subprime mortgage crisis (while conveniently singling out "sheer greed" as the only cause).

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_20/b4228031594062.htm


    I think the levels of lender fraud at the financial organizations had a lot more to do with the sub-prime crisis than did the role of government in advocating housing for all! That, combined with the successful (and disgustingly greedy) actions of American businesses in stripping American workers of their reasonable share of the American economy (by way of using free trade to kill their unions and undercut American labor), and encouraging those same American workers to use debt as a means to retain their standard of living (all of which was done to mask the growing income disparity) contributed to the big, fat mess that the USA found itself in, and that it exported around the world!

    Nice try twinkie...but we both know that it's neither Liberals nor the poor and disenfranchised that control Washington. If the lending institutions hadn't been making a mint off of the sub-prime fiasco prior to the crash, they would've exerted their usual complete control of the American political system and put a stop to it long ago!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 7:32 PM GMT
    showme saidWhile I'm so deep in the financial services industry that some of my liberal friends might think I'm only a shill, I still can't buy this one. I hardly think that the credit crisis was caused by banks trying to comply with their CRA obligations. Doesn't even pass the sniff test.


    Thank you! That's what I've been telling Mock and SB for about two years now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 7:42 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    Thank you! That's what I've been telling Mock and SB for about two years now.


    That's an absurd and racist statement. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Must be an in-"joke," I don't get it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 9:27 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    showme said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    Thank you! That's what I've been telling Mock and SB for about two years now.


    That's an absurd and racist statement. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Must be an in-"joke," I don't get it.


    Yeah... Christian earlier responded to this.....

    The U.S. didn't exist as a legal entity at the time the "Pilgrims on the Mayflower" came over, therefore no U.S. immigration laws were being violated.

    And I'm not aware of any immigration laws that were on the books of the Massachusetts tribes at that time.


    ....by saying it was a racist statement.


    It's racist because it does not recognize the Native Americans right to land on which they lived, and to this continent as their home. I supposes a Western European vision of political governance that denies the right of native peoples to the land they farmed and lived on because there was no "immigration laws".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 9:29 PM GMT
    TrentGrad said
    mocktwinkie said...The kind of federal economic interference agenda that liberals live for, and yet they will try to find every way possible to blame the banks for pursuing bad practices, even though they are the ones continually pressuring the banks to engage in the very risky business which puts them in jeopardy and ultimately caused the last great subprime mortgage crisis (while conveniently singling out "sheer greed" as the only cause).

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_20/b4228031594062.htm


    I think the levels of lender fraud at the financial organizations had a lot more to do with the sub-prime crisis than did the role of government in advocating housing for all! That, combined with the successful (and disgustingly greedy) actions of American businesses in stripping American workers of their reasonable share of the American economy (by way of using free trade to kill their unions and undercut American labor), and encouraging those same American workers to use debt as a means to retain their standard of living (all of which was done to mask the growing income disparity) contributed to the big, fat mess that the USA found itself in, and that it exported around the world!

    Nice try twinkie...but we both know that it's neither Liberals nor the poor and disenfranchised that control Washington. If the lending institutions hadn't been making a mint off of the sub-prime fiasco prior to the crash, they would've exerted their usual complete control of the American political system and put a stop to it long ago!





    QFT

    And of course twinkie neglects to mention that we had a Republican president and a Republican Congress when the housing crisis hit, and that neither Bush nor the Repubs in Congress lifted a finger to try to stop or ease the crisis.
    In FACT, despite twinkie's lame attempt to portray the crisis as the "liberals" fault - Bush - AND THE REPUBS IN CONGRESS - FULLY supported and PUSHED the very policies twinkie is whining about and trying to describe as something that only the "liberals" supported.
    As we can see in this speech by Bush back in 2002.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 9:38 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    TrentGrad said
    mocktwinkie said...The kind of federal economic interference agenda that liberals live for, and yet they will try to find every way possible to blame the banks for pursuing bad practices, even though they are the ones continually pressuring the banks to engage in the very risky business which puts them in jeopardy and ultimately caused the last great subprime mortgage crisis (while conveniently singling out "sheer greed" as the only cause).

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_20/b4228031594062.htm


    I think the levels of lender fraud at the financial organizations had a lot more to do with the sub-prime crisis than did the role of government in advocating housing for all! That, combined with the successful (and disgustingly greedy) actions of American businesses in stripping American workers of their reasonable share of the American economy (by way of using free trade to kill their unions and undercut American labor), and encouraging those same American workers to use debt as a means to retain their standard of living (all of which was done to mask the growing income disparity) contributed to the big, fat mess that the USA found itself in, and that it exported around the world!

    Nice try twinkie...but we both know that it's neither Liberals nor the poor and disenfranchised that control Washington. If the lending institutions hadn't been making a mint off of the sub-prime fiasco prior to the crash, they would've exerted their usual complete control of the American political system and put a stop to it long ago!




    QFT


    Sorry, this is ALSO a crock, at least mostly. Outsourcing and anti-union activity? Outright fraud? No. Lending institutions encouraging everyone to take on unsustainable debt levels? Partially - but as in all bubbles, everyone got greedy (borrowers included), and everyone was so afraid of getting left behind by the money that could be made that they discounted reasonable concerns about unsustainability. Even me - I'm a reasonably smart guy and due to my work know more about this stuff than a lot of people, but I still lost my shirt (metaphorically speaking) on a condo that I bought (but didn't need to buy) at the height of the real estate bubble.

    I can guarantee you that lending institutions don't control the American political system these days, lots of what has been proposed or enacted is ill-considered and punitive.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 9:49 PM GMT
    showme saidWhile I'm so deep in the financial services industry that some of my liberal friends might think I'm only a shill, I still can't buy this one. I hardly think that the credit crisis was caused by banks trying to comply with their CRA obligations. Doesn't even pass the sniff test.


    You should read the extensive article on this published by the Washington Post, which clearly identifies the critical causes. I can't fully know how to respond to your clear delusion that somehow you are being made to "buy" anything, unless of course you're just totally unaware of the causes and fell for the ruse that somehow bankers woke up one day and decided to just go on a crazy lending spree. Bottom line, if the federal government had not ordered fannie and freddie (themselves government chartered) to push into greater subprime mortgages for the "purpose" of "helping" low-income people to afford more homes and increase "diversity" in home ownership, the crisis very likely would not have occurred. Race or religion or orientation has no part in credit standards -- banks are interested in making a profit. People aren't scouting to see what race someone is applying so that they can disenfranchise them. The bank is out to make sure that they get paid back and don't take a loss. They lend based on factual trends. If one person is accepted and another isn't, yes, that sure the hell is discrimination on the basis of qualification, not anything else.

    Furthermore, I have documented elsewhere that banks like countrywide were put into a position which all but totally forced them to take on the risky lending that they did in order to not be demonized as "discriminatory", subsequently being praised as the best example of "non-discriminatory" lending by fannie and freddie who were under order by the government (pushed primarily by liberals, as most of us are largely aware).

    Trentgrad,

    Why would you fake a scenario where the poor are being blamed? While it's true that personal responsibility plays a factor, these people were targeted by the programs that were intended to "help" them. That's the liberal mentality -- it's never intentionally meant to disenfranchise, it just ends up doing precisely the opposite of what's intended. Obviously the low-income people who were targeted didn't come up with these lending standards, so how could they in any capacity (in terms of a toxic lending atmosphere) be to blame. The people with the power and fictitious intention to "help" (but without obvious insight) are to blame for what happened here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 9:51 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    TrentGrad said
    mocktwinkie said...The kind of federal economic interference agenda that liberals live for, and yet they will try to find every way possible to blame the banks for pursuing bad practices, even though they are the ones continually pressuring the banks to engage in the very risky business which puts them in jeopardy and ultimately caused the last great subprime mortgage crisis (while conveniently singling out "sheer greed" as the only cause).

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_20/b4228031594062.htm


    I think the levels of lender fraud at the financial organizations had a lot more to do with the sub-prime crisis than did the role of government in advocating housing for all! That, combined with the successful (and disgustingly greedy) actions of American businesses in stripping American workers of their reasonable share of the American economy (by way of using free trade to kill their unions and undercut American labor), and encouraging those same American workers to use debt as a means to retain their standard of living (all of which was done to mask the growing income disparity) contributed to the big, fat mess that the USA found itself in, and that it exported around the world!

    Nice try twinkie...but we both know that it's neither Liberals nor the poor and disenfranchised that control Washington. If the lending institutions hadn't been making a mint off of the sub-prime fiasco prior to the crash, they would've exerted their usual complete control of the American political system and put a stop to it long ago!





    QFT

    And of course twinkie neglects to mention that we had a Republican president and a Republican Congress when the housing crisis hit, and that neither Bush nor the Repubs in Congress lifted a finger to try to stop or ease the crisis.
    In FACT, despite twinkie's lame attempt to portray the crisis as the "liberals" fault - Bush - AND THE REPUBS IN CONGRESS - FULLY supported and PUSHED the very policies twinkie is whining about and trying to describe as something that only the "liberals" supported.
    As we can see in this speech by Bush back in 2002.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8


    That's one of the reasons I couldn't stand President Bush. Thanks for pointing this out once again rickrick! He went right along with the liberal push to make his presidency look great. Doesn't matter if it's a republican or democrat or "liberal" or "conservative" in name. These government manipulation and intervention policies are to blame, and they are the cornerstone of liberal economic thought.

    By blaming Bush, and rightfully so, you are automatically admitting that the liberals who were the chief instigators behind this should be in jail, including congressmen like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    May 11, 2011 9:52 PM GMT
    I'm not sure why Midwest BankCentre agreed to settle or is concerned regarding any Fed action. I have footed the bill for four bank defenses before Federal Administrative Law Judges in the past 18-months and in each case it was easily proven mortgage loans were refused based upon criteria the Fed itself enforces.

    I generally recommend all small banks withdraw from mortgage lending. The exposure from this type tacit requirement that a bank make bad mortgage loans is simply something the bank cannot bare.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 9:58 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    You should read the extensive article on this published by the Washington Post, which clearly identifies the critical causes. I can't fully know how to respond to your clear delusion that somehow you are being made to "buy" anything, unless of course you're just totally unaware of the causes and fell for the ruse that somehow bankers woke up one day and decided to just go on a crazy lending spree. Bottom line, if the federal government had not ordered fannie and freddie (themselves government chartered) to push into greater subprime mortgages for the "purpose" of "helping" low-income people to afford more homes and increase "diversity" in home ownership, the crisis very likely would not have occurred. Race or religion or orientation has no part in credit standards -- banks are interested in making a profit. People aren't scouting to see what race someone is applying so that they can disenfranchise them. The bank is out to make sure that they get paid back and don't take a loss. They lend based on factual trends. If one person is accepted and another isn't, yes, that sure the hell is discrimination on the basis of qualification, not anything else.

    Furthermore, I have documented elsewhere that banks like countrywide were put into a position which all but totally forced them to take on the risky lending that they did in order to not be demonized as "discriminatory", subsequently being praised as the best example of "non-discriminatory" lending by fannie and freddie who were under order by the government (pushed primarily by liberals, as most of us are largely aware).


    Fannie and Freddie got into the subprime game very late into the bubble - trying to compete with private lenders - the bubble was well on its way already. The lending institutions were not FORCED to do subprime loans. They did it because there was money to be made - buckets and buckets of it, in the heyday of the bubble. (And just to be clear, in general, I do not think that making buckets of money is a bad thing.)

    We can debate the policy behind CRA standards, but the point you made originally seems to be that they caused the financial crisis, which they did not.

    Thanks for calling me deluded. icon_rolleyes.gif Not appreciated. I am not calling anyone names and if you pay attention you would know that I don't do that, on either side. I am not one of your normal liberal whipping boys - as I said, I have a job that means I know this stuff. I have lived it for the past few years.

    BTW, I live in the DC area, and think the WaPo is ok (gone downhill hugely in the past few years, but still got some good sides). But business reporting is NOT its strong point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 10:00 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    showme said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    Thank you! That's what I've been telling Mock and SB for about two years now.


    That's an absurd and racist statement. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Must be an in-"joke," I don't get it.


    Yeah... Christian earlier responded to this.....

    The U.S. didn't exist as a legal entity at the time the "Pilgrims on the Mayflower" came over, therefore no U.S. immigration laws were being violated.

    And I'm not aware of any immigration laws that were on the books of the Massachusetts tribes at that time.


    ....by saying it was a racist statement.


    It's racist because it does not recognize the Native Americans right to land on which they lived, and to this continent as their home. I supposes a Western European vision of political governance that denies the right of native peoples to the land they farmed and lived on because there was no "immigration laws".


    You only see through the lenses of race, that's your problem. If a group of non-whites are occupying a piece of land and they are disenfranchised by another group of non-whites, you don't seem to have a problem with the latter group keeping it (presumably because they look the same skin color wise as the former group?), but if one group of non-whites are disenfranchised by whites then all of a sudden it's a big deal and whites should give the land back.

    This is the problem when you're thinking in terms of race. In Precolumbian America (of which I am very much familiar and obsessed with their history) there were all sorts of ethnic groups constantly annihilating each other century upon century, but because they all looked roughly the same and weren't white you've got yourself convinced that the first time anyone was disenfranchised of anything was when the europeans showed up and subjugated the people of the Americas.

    Why are you so obsessed with focusing on the race of who is conquering who? Aren't people just people?

    Gawd, if only you could see how intellectually ridiculous you sound without thinking in terms of western racial brainwash.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 10:07 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidYou only see through the lenses of race, that's your problem. If a group of non-whites are occupying a piece of land and they are disenfranchised by another group of non-whites, you don't seem to have a problem with the latter group keeping it (presumably because they look the same skin color wise as the former group?), but if one group of non-whites are disenfranchised by whites then all of a sudden it's a big deal and whites should give the land back.

    This is the problem when you're thinking in terms of race. In Precolumbian America (of which I am very much familiar and obsessed with their history) there were all sorts of ethnic groups constantly annihilating each other century upon century, but because they all looked roughly the same and weren't white you've got yourself convinced that the first time anyone was disenfranchised of anything was when the europeans showed up and subjugated the people of the Americas.

    Why are you so obsessed with focusing on the race of who is conquering who? Aren't people just people?

    Gawd, if only you could see how intellectually ridiculous you sound without thinking in terms of western racial brainwash.


    Since someone else is schooling you on how wrong you are regarding mortgage crisis, I'll deal with this.

    A) I see things through a number of lenses, race being one of them. I question my white privilege and force myself to think things through others perspectives.

    B) The issue isn't the history of Native Americans or pre-Columbian societies. Even the Pilgrims were not necessarily racist but more likely ignorant of Native customs and how they settled their disputes.

    C) What is racist (as all we ahistorical and uninformed) is SB applying a Western European frame to the way in which Europeans took over North America, displacing and eventually (unwittingly) killing huge swaths of the native population, and make an ignorant remark about the Native tribes not having "immigration law" in response to the very good question of why those of us whose parents/grandparents immigrated here have a right to slam the door behind us and, in the case of most anti-immigrant movements, use racist fear-mongering to portray undocumented workers as alien parasites.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 10:36 PM GMT
    showme said
    mocktwinkie said
    You should read the extensive article on this published by the Washington Post, which clearly identifies the critical causes. I can't fully know how to respond to your clear delusion that somehow you are being made to "buy" anything, unless of course you're just totally unaware of the causes and fell for the ruse that somehow bankers woke up one day and decided to just go on a crazy lending spree. Bottom line, if the federal government had not ordered fannie and freddie (themselves government chartered) to push into greater subprime mortgages for the "purpose" of "helping" low-income people to afford more homes and increase "diversity" in home ownership, the crisis very likely would not have occurred. Race or religion or orientation has no part in credit standards -- banks are interested in making a profit. People aren't scouting to see what race someone is applying so that they can disenfranchise them. The bank is out to make sure that they get paid back and don't take a loss. They lend based on factual trends. If one person is accepted and another isn't, yes, that sure the hell is discrimination on the basis of qualification, not anything else.

    Furthermore, I have documented elsewhere that banks like countrywide were put into a position which all but totally forced them to take on the risky lending that they did in order to not be demonized as "discriminatory", subsequently being praised as the best example of "non-discriminatory" lending by fannie and freddie who were under order by the government (pushed primarily by liberals, as most of us are largely aware).


    Fannie and Freddie got into the subprime game very late into the bubble - trying to compete with private lenders - the bubble was well on its way already. The lending institutions were not FORCED to do subprime loans. They did it because there was money to be made - buckets and buckets of it, in the heyday of the bubble.

    We can debate the policy behind CRA standards, but the point you made originally seems to be that they caused the financial crisis, which they did not.

    Thanks for calling me deluded. icon_rolleyes.gif Not appreciated. I am not calling anyone names and if you pay attention you would know that I don't do that, on either side. I am not one of your normal liberal whipping boys - as I said, I have a job that means I know this stuff. I have lived it for the past few years.

    BTW, I live in the DC area, and think the WaPo is ok (gone downhill hugely in the past few years, but still got some good sides). But business reporting is NOT its strong point.


    Sorry to break it to you but your chronology of events is just plain wrong. Belying your claim is the fact that around half of the entire US mortgage market was dominated by Fannie and Freddie.

    Read carefully:

    “In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the subprime market.[117] In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[118] From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities. Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market.[119] The GSE have always been highly leveraged, their net worth as of 30 June 2008 being a mere US$114 billion.[120] When concerns arose in September 2008 regarding the ability of the GSE to make good on their guarantees, the Federal government was forced to place the companies into a conservatorship, effectively nationalizing them at the taxpayers' expense.[121][122]”--------subprime mortgage crisis (wikipedia)

    And now let's look at why commercial banks like Countrywide were all but forced to engage in the practices that they did.

    "Countrywide agreed to a settlement with New York state attorney general Elliot Spitzer to compensate black and Hispanic borrowers improperly steered by Countrywide salespeople to higher-cost loans. The company also agreed to improve training and oversight of its loan officers and to pay New York state $200,000 to cover costs of the investigation.[15]

    Countrywide subprime documents show a policy of lending to families with as little as $1000 of disposable income, often compromising their ability to pay living expenses. This guideline was not established by Countrywide, but rather the investors to whom they sold their loans [GEE, I WONDER WHO THEY COULD HAVE BEEN SELLING THESE LOANS TO?]. However Countrywide had no qualms in following through despite it knowing those families would likely fail to make monthly payments: these loans would be sold to investors shortly after anyway [IF THESE "INVESTORS" WEREN'T BUYING THESE BAD LOANS IT NEVER WOULD HAVE DRIVEN BANKS LIKE COUNTRYWIDE TO ENGAGE IN THESE PRACTICES, BUT THE GOVERNMENT SET THE PRECEDENT FOR FANNIE AND GANG ALREADY]. Employees were given scripts as a sales aid when talking to customers about taking out loans.

    Economist Stan Liebowitz writes that the Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial as a "paragon" of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." The chief executive of Countrywide is said to have "bragged" that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit." Countrywide's commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003"
    --- Bank Of America Home Loans (Wikipedia)

    So no, the commercial banks were feeling the pressure because the loans that fannie and freddie were wanting in great numbers were bad loans from subprime lending. Couple this with the fact that in the end commercial banks are guaranteed by FDIC (so it's a nothing to lose scenario, really!) and the fact that fannie and freddie were going to be implicitly guaranteed as well.

    Greed is an ever present factor, like gravity. It can be a good thing or it can cause untold hurt in situations where it is given an opportunity to do so (as it did in this case). What happened was not unlike a situation where the government mandates that a private business take on more risky practices while simultaneously guaranteeing the added insurance risk.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 10:54 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidYou only see through the lenses of race, that's your problem. If a group of non-whites are occupying a piece of land and they are disenfranchised by another group of non-whites, you don't seem to have a problem with the latter group keeping it (presumably because they look the same skin color wise as the former group?), but if one group of non-whites are disenfranchised by whites then all of a sudden it's a big deal and whites should give the land back.

    This is the problem when you're thinking in terms of race. In Precolumbian America (of which I am very much familiar and obsessed with their history) there were all sorts of ethnic groups constantly annihilating each other century upon century, but because they all looked roughly the same and weren't white you've got yourself convinced that the first time anyone was disenfranchised of anything was when the europeans showed up and subjugated the people of the Americas.

    Why are you so obsessed with focusing on the race of who is conquering who? Aren't people just people?

    Gawd, if only you could see how intellectually ridiculous you sound without thinking in terms of western racial brainwash.


    Since someone else is schooling you on how wrong you are regarding mortgage crisis, I'll deal with this.

    A) I see things through a number of lenses, race being one of them. I question my white privilege and force myself to think things through others perspectives.

    B) The issue isn't the history of Native Americans or pre-Columbian societies. Even the Pilgrims were not necessarily racist but more likely ignorant of Native customs and how they settled their disputes.

    C) What is racist (as all we ahistorical and uninformed) is SB applying a Western European frame to the way in which Europeans took over North America, displacing and eventually (unwittingly) killing huge swaths of the native population, and make an ignorant remark about the Native tribes not having "immigration law" in response to the very good question of why those of us whose parents/grandparents immigrated here have a right to slam the door behind us and, in the case of most anti-immigrant movements, use racist fear-mongering to portray undocumented workers as alien parasites.


    But you're deliberately being racist yourself and you don't even know it. If non-whites are not constantly worried about offending whites by applying their "frame" on the world (such as China, Japan, for example) then why should whites? As an example: if there is a white person you don't like and a non-white person you don't like, why should you treat one a little different, or "less" offensively than the way you would treat the other? By treating them both the same you are affirming that they are both equal and that you don't need to treat one as being inferior.

    Everyone in non-western countries are applying their own frame on things, so what's the big deal?

    You automatically put your western white guilt lenses on everything. Hello! White people are going to be like 3% of the world population soon and probably all extinct in several hundred years. You act like white people are some significant majority oppressing everyone. Heck, they'll soon be a minority in Europe itself (have you been there lately?).

    You don't see Japanese treating whites in a condescending manner because they don't assume their inferiority to them. They demonstrate that they are treating you equally by actually treating you with their own standards without assuming that whites can't take care of themselves and that they need to be "rescued" from something. But you do! By treating a black person or whatever they may be differently from a white person you constantly perpetuate the idea in society that they are inferior and are always in need of your magnanimous white help. That's what liberal do-gooders thrive on.

    "There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal." --Friedrich August Hayek

    You are obviously the latter one and you don't even know it. And I should also say, that by forever "attempting" to make someone else equal (when they already have equal rights) is already to assume that they are inferior, which in turn creates a never ending cycle of inequality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 11:02 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidYou only see through the lenses of race, that's your problem. If a group of non-whites are occupying a piece of land and they are disenfranchised by another group of non-whites, you don't seem to have a problem with the latter group keeping it (presumably because they look the same skin color wise as the former group?), but if one group of non-whites are disenfranchised by whites then all of a sudden it's a big deal and whites should give the land back.

    This is the problem when you're thinking in terms of race. In Precolumbian America (of which I am very much familiar and obsessed with their history) there were all sorts of ethnic groups constantly annihilating each other century upon century, but because they all looked roughly the same and weren't white you've got yourself convinced that the first time anyone was disenfranchised of anything was when the europeans showed up and subjugated the people of the Americas.

    Why are you so obsessed with focusing on the race of who is conquering who? Aren't people just people?

    Gawd, if only you could see how intellectually ridiculous you sound without thinking in terms of western racial brainwash.


    Since someone else is schooling you on how wrong you are regarding mortgage crisis, I'll deal with this.

    A) I see things through a number of lenses, race being one of them. I question my white privilege and force myself to think things through others perspectives.

    B) The issue isn't the history of Native Americans or pre-Columbian societies. Even the Pilgrims were not necessarily racist but more likely ignorant of Native customs and how they settled their disputes.

    C) What is racist (as all we ahistorical and uninformed) is SB applying a Western European frame to the way in which Europeans took over North America, displacing and eventually (unwittingly) killing huge swaths of the native population, and make an ignorant remark about the Native tribes not having "immigration law" in response to the very good question of why those of us whose parents/grandparents immigrated here have a right to slam the door behind us and, in the case of most anti-immigrant movements, use racist fear-mongering to portray undocumented workers as alien parasites.


    I should note that since all of the other populations of the world had/have no problem doing exactly what you are saying whites are doing to other groups, then your point is rather meaningless. History and the world of ethnic factions, whether they looked like they belonged to the same race or not, is rife with people/religions/groups creating their own standards and disregarding the others (and in most ancient cases, just killing or exterminating the other group).

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 11:14 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    TrentGrad said
    mocktwinkie said...The kind of federal economic interference agenda that liberals live for, and yet they will try to find every way possible to blame the banks for pursuing bad practices, even though they are the ones continually pressuring the banks to engage in the very risky business which puts them in jeopardy and ultimately caused the last great subprime mortgage crisis (while conveniently singling out "sheer greed" as the only cause).

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_20/b4228031594062.htm


    I think the levels of lender fraud at the financial organizations had a lot more to do with the sub-prime crisis than did the role of government in advocating housing for all! That, combined with the successful (and disgustingly greedy) actions of American businesses in stripping American workers of their reasonable share of the American economy (by way of using free trade to kill their unions and undercut American labor), and encouraging those same American workers to use debt as a means to retain their standard of living (all of which was done to mask the growing income disparity) contributed to the big, fat mess that the USA found itself in, and that it exported around the world!

    Nice try twinkie...but we both know that it's neither Liberals nor the poor and disenfranchised that control Washington. If the lending institutions hadn't been making a mint off of the sub-prime fiasco prior to the crash, they would've exerted their usual complete control of the American political system and put a stop to it long ago!





    QFT

    And of course twinkie neglects to mention that we had a Republican president and a Republican Congress when the housing crisis hit, and that neither Bush nor the Repubs in Congress lifted a finger to try to stop or ease the crisis.
    In FACT, despite twinkie's lame attempt to portray the crisis as the "liberals" fault - Bush - AND THE REPUBS IN CONGRESS - FULLY supported and PUSHED the very policies twinkie is whining about and trying to describe as something that only the "liberals" supported.
    As we can see in this speech by Bush back in 2002.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8


    That's one of the reasons I couldn't stand President Bush. Thanks for pointing this out once again rickrick! He went right along with the liberal push to make his presidency look great. Doesn't matter if it's a republican or democrat or "liberal" or "conservative" in name. These government manipulation and intervention policies are to blame, and they are the cornerstone of liberal economic thought.

    By blaming Bush, and rightfully so, you are automatically admitting that the liberals who were the chief instigators behind this should be in jail, including congressmen like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.





    TOTAL BS.

    As I pointed out above - the Repubs in Congress AGREED WITH Bush's push for increasing home ownership.
    It was NOT just Bush who pushed these policies.
    And Bush DID NOT just go "right along with the liberal push" to implement these policies.
    He went "right along with" a REPUBLICAN CRAFTED AND PASSED BILL.
    The American Dream Downpayment Act was introduced on April 8th, 2003 in the Senate by REPUBLICAN Wayne Allard of CO.
    http://themiddleclass.org/bill/american-dream-downpayment-act-2003
    It was a REPUBLICAN CRAFTED BILL pushed by the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS.
    It was this bill that Bush signed into law.
    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031216-9.html
    A REPUBLICAN BILL.

    If you believe that the ones responsible for pushing these policies "should be in jail" - then it should be the ones who crafted and introduced the bill - THE REPUBLICANS - and the one who signed the bill into law - PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH - who ought to be behind bars.

    Kindly attempt to get your facts straight in future.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 11:15 PM GMT
    conservativejock said I have footed the bill for four bank defenses before Federal Administrative Law Judges in the past 18-months Wow you must be uber wealthy...

    I generally recommend all small banks withdraw from mortgage lending. And how would a small bank make money? Investing in the market? Hmmmmmm..

    and people wonder why I haven't put a dime into a commercial 'bank' in decades.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 11:18 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    TrentGrad said
    mocktwinkie said...The kind of federal economic interference agenda that liberals live for, and yet they will try to find every way possible to blame the banks for pursuing bad practices, even though they are the ones continually pressuring the banks to engage in the very risky business which puts them in jeopardy and ultimately caused the last great subprime mortgage crisis (while conveniently singling out "sheer greed" as the only cause).

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_20/b4228031594062.htm


    I think the levels of lender fraud at the financial organizations had a lot more to do with the sub-prime crisis than did the role of government in advocating housing for all! That, combined with the successful (and disgustingly greedy) actions of American businesses in stripping American workers of their reasonable share of the American economy (by way of using free trade to kill their unions and undercut American labor), and encouraging those same American workers to use debt as a means to retain their standard of living (all of which was done to mask the growing income disparity) contributed to the big, fat mess that the USA found itself in, and that it exported around the world!

    Nice try twinkie...but we both know that it's neither Liberals nor the poor and disenfranchised that control Washington. If the lending institutions hadn't been making a mint off of the sub-prime fiasco prior to the crash, they would've exerted their usual complete control of the American political system and put a stop to it long ago!





    QFT

    And of course twinkie neglects to mention that we had a Republican president and a Republican Congress when the housing crisis hit, and that neither Bush nor the Repubs in Congress lifted a finger to try to stop or ease the crisis.
    In FACT, despite twinkie's lame attempt to portray the crisis as the "liberals" fault - Bush - AND THE REPUBS IN CONGRESS - FULLY supported and PUSHED the very policies twinkie is whining about and trying to describe as something that only the "liberals" supported.
    As we can see in this speech by Bush back in 2002.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8


    That's one of the reasons I couldn't stand President Bush. Thanks for pointing this out once again rickrick! He went right along with the liberal push to make his presidency look great. Doesn't matter if it's a republican or democrat or "liberal" or "conservative" in name. These government manipulation and intervention policies are to blame, and they are the cornerstone of liberal economic thought.

    By blaming Bush, and rightfully so, you are automatically admitting that the liberals who were the chief instigators behind this should be in jail, including congressmen like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.





    TOTAL BS.

    As I pointed out above - the Repubs in Congress AGREED WITH Bush's push for increasing home ownership.
    It was NOT just Bush who pushed these policies.
    And Bush DID NOT just go "right along with the liberal push" to implement these policies.
    He went "right along with" a REPUBLICAN CRAFTED AND PASSED BILL.
    The American Dream Downpayment Act was introduced on April 8th, 2003 in the Senate by REPUBLICAN Wayne Allard of CO.
    http://themiddleclass.org/bill/american-dream-downpayment-act-2003
    It was a REPUBLICAN CRAFTED BILL pushed by the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS.
    It was this bill that Bush signed into law.
    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031216-9.html
    A REPUBLICAN BILL.

    If you believe that the ones responsible for pushing these policies "should be in jail" - then it should be the ones who crafted and introduced the bill - THE REPUBLICANS - and the one who signed the bill into law - PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH who ought to be behind bars.



    Democrats controlled congress during the Bush tenure. Not sure if you're smoking or drunk already.

    But it really doesn't even matter if it's republicans or democrats involved, the policies of constant government manipulation of the economic process are inherently liberal by nature. Just because someone has an "R" by their name doesn't mean they aren't going to support bad Keynesian economics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 11:22 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    Democrats controlled congress during the Bush tenure. Not sure if you're smoking or drunk already.

    Also, like I said, it doesn't matter if it's republicans or democrats doing it,
    Then why make the asinine statement in blue? icon_rolleyes.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 11:30 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    TrentGrad said
    mocktwinkie said...The kind of federal economic interference agenda that liberals live for, and yet they will try to find every way possible to blame the banks for pursuing bad practices, even though they are the ones continually pressuring the banks to engage in the very risky business which puts them in jeopardy and ultimately caused the last great subprime mortgage crisis (while conveniently singling out "sheer greed" as the only cause).

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_20/b4228031594062.htm


    I think the levels of lender fraud at the financial organizations had a lot more to do with the sub-prime crisis than did the role of government in advocating housing for all! That, combined with the successful (and disgustingly greedy) actions of American businesses in stripping American workers of their reasonable share of the American economy (by way of using free trade to kill their unions and undercut American labor), and encouraging those same American workers to use debt as a means to retain their standard of living (all of which was done to mask the growing income disparity) contributed to the big, fat mess that the USA found itself in, and that it exported around the world!

    Nice try twinkie...but we both know that it's neither Liberals nor the poor and disenfranchised that control Washington. If the lending institutions hadn't been making a mint off of the sub-prime fiasco prior to the crash, they would've exerted their usual complete control of the American political system and put a stop to it long ago!





    QFT

    And of course twinkie neglects to mention that we had a Republican president and a Republican Congress when the housing crisis hit, and that neither Bush nor the Repubs in Congress lifted a finger to try to stop or ease the crisis.
    In FACT, despite twinkie's lame attempt to portray the crisis as the "liberals" fault - Bush - AND THE REPUBS IN CONGRESS - FULLY supported and PUSHED the very policies twinkie is whining about and trying to describe as something that only the "liberals" supported.
    As we can see in this speech by Bush back in 2002.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8


    That's one of the reasons I couldn't stand President Bush. Thanks for pointing this out once again rickrick! He went right along with the liberal push to make his presidency look great. Doesn't matter if it's a republican or democrat or "liberal" or "conservative" in name. These government manipulation and intervention policies are to blame, and they are the cornerstone of liberal economic thought.

    By blaming Bush, and rightfully so, you are automatically admitting that the liberals who were the chief instigators behind this should be in jail, including congressmen like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.





    TOTAL BS.

    As I pointed out above - the Repubs in Congress AGREED WITH Bush's push for increasing home ownership.
    It was NOT just Bush who pushed these policies.
    And Bush DID NOT just go "right along with the liberal push" to implement these policies.
    He went "right along with" a REPUBLICAN CRAFTED AND PASSED BILL.
    The American Dream Downpayment Act was introduced on April 8th, 2003 in the Senate by REPUBLICAN Wayne Allard of CO.
    http://themiddleclass.org/bill/american-dream-downpayment-act-2003
    It was a REPUBLICAN CRAFTED BILL pushed by the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS.
    It was this bill that Bush signed into law.
    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031216-9.html
    A REPUBLICAN BILL.

    If you believe that the ones responsible for pushing these policies "should be in jail" - then it should be the ones who crafted and introduced the bill - THE REPUBLICANS - and the one who signed the bill into law - PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH who ought to be behind bars.



    Democrats controlled congress during the Bush tenure. Not sure if you're smoking or drunk already.

    But it really doesn't even matter if it's republicans or democrats involved, the policies of constant government manipulation of the economic process are inherently liberal by nature. Just because someone has an "R" by their name doesn't mean they aren't going to support bad Keynesian economics.




    The Democrats only controlled the Congress for the LAST 2 YEARS of Bush's presidency.
    The REPUBLICANS controlled both houses of Congress from Jan. 2001 until Jan. 2007 - the first 6 years of Bush's presidency.
    Even total idiots know that!

    The American Dream Downpayment Act was passed in 2003 - while the Repubs were in complete control of Congress and the White House.
    The Act was a totally REPUBLICAN CRAFTED BILL, signed into law by a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.

    You obviously don't know WTF you're talking about, as per usual.
    Do you Repubs just think you can make shit up and rewrite history and nobody is going to call you out on it?

    And your personal attack BS is just PATHETIC.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 11:50 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 said
    The Democrats only controlled the Congress for the LAST 2 YEARS of Bush's presidency.


    Yeah.... Curious how soon after the Democrat spending machine took over Congress that the recession hit. icon_surprised.gif
    Yeah.. you ARE that dumb..icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 12, 2011 12:48 AM GMT
    You're a liar.
    This has nothing to do with offering sub prime loans, and everything to do with "redlining."

    So you're in favor of denying a home loan to someone solely because of their race ?
    Typical Republican.