i think u secretely dream about his socks but you're in a deep stage of denile and want to make yourself look like u don't care....but i'm watching you!
Yo u notice cristi actually did sumit different wid the socks tonite, fo serious! But I got a reals beef rite now, I'm hating on the Disability Discrimination Act. Not to come accross all Glen Hoddle on a maa-********a, but I can't say I agree with covertly enforcing special treatment in the name of equality- totally misses the point of the word....and the way that the DDA totally twists ish and impinges on civil rights by it's application of the term "less favourably", for example if one had a private members club with a zero-tolerance rule to violence, and excluded someone for a violent and un-provoked outburst, who later turned out to have aspergers, then you'd be guilty of discriminating (actually given as an example in the DDA handbook from surestart!) against them. Now despite the predictable point-missing from tbm, I'm not being prejudice here, quite the contrary. What I do dislike is the PC-BS EXCUSING of individuals from accountability because of a label. If I steal from you because it is my belief that stealing is not infact wrong, and I am imprisoned, on the DDA logic I could claim discrimination against the legal system and just have to make it sound like I was delusional and truly believed it, someone would give me some kinda label under the DSM-IV and jobs a good'un! So I'm also beefing with the insanity defence, and generally all this politically correct uber self-protecting conservatism
...with anyone who thinks Bush is the culprit of this economic crisis. if you care to understand more....http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print i have an issue with my US representative, Mel Watt. he is a f**kin idiot who needs to be removed from office. he won't because of the demographics of his district which is a shame and shows the purely racial bias of the voters. http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709 i am sorry to say that all non-us residents will be harmed by this crisis. you can believe the media or understand the true problem of democrats forcing business to give poor people loans they can't pay. this is where "equality for all" has to stop. the poor don't deserve the same treatment as those that can afford things. plain and simple.
C'mon, that's not even close to being the case. You're saying that this crisis isn't a product of greed, or lack of regulation, but instead can be traced to the 70's? That's when Congress passed CRA, an act that encouraged commercial banks to invest in housing in cities that were facing both redlining and major decline. The idea was simple: Stabilizing neighborhoods, through home ownership, would stabilize cities. To suggest that the greatest financial crisis we have faced since the Great Depression was caused by legislation that was created to help prevent low-income individuals from assuming high-cost, subprime loans that have caused the crisis today is absurd. To suggest that struggling families trying to keep their home brought down Wall Street, is ludicrous. To suggest someone who is raising three children while holding down two minimum wage jobs on a high school education was able to stall one of the greatest economic engines on Earth needs their head examined. In fact, I'd say a large number of these bad loans were taken by people who wanted to "flip" properties and got screwed when the bubble burst. Look at how many TV shows appeared over the past 8 years on flipping properties. I don't think those were poor people doing it. And again, you bring race into your discussions. How many white Congressman are from majority white districts? Are they in office because of race? Disgusting.
Regarding the economic crisis: ARE THE THINGS I BUY GONNA COST MORE? AND WILL MY JOB PAY ME LESS? These things aside, then we're golden!
THANKS JIMMY!!! not to mention the clinton revision in 1995. there always has to be a victim, right? but if they can't pay then why give them loans? home owners have increased in the US over the past 20 years and incomes really haven't justified that. banks were forced by the government. where do they right off debt? they can't simple sell home loans to investment banks back and forth and think they can make money. will you let me borrow 1,000,000? btw i only make about 10k a year right now. No? you won't? Why not? point proven so it's just been 8 years ago? democrats do not seem to remember a time prior to jan 2000. that is a laughing joke. the bubble burst 5 years ago and speculators did get f**ked. my parents have neighbors that have lawn chairs in their million plus home. they were stupid and exceeded their means. speculators drove the bubble up and made it pop[see: recent oil price trends/gold in the 1970-1980s]. the reason that these people could get these loans to flip houses is the government regulation of the industry demanded the practices. they forced banks to give loans to people who they knew could not repay them. yes i did [for the first time] and i will stand behind that. your ignorance of the district is showing. come down and vote in the 12th district. we have had talk about things before but this is not one i will waver on. just look at the damn district. it's more so a shame on the people that created it based on demographics. it's been an issue in this area for a long time on both sides. it's been quoted that the district is "political pornography" and to the supreme court numerous times after "re-drawing". it's both parties fault but an interesting point. the link from my first post was bush in Q3 2003. thats 5 years ago. he has tried numerous times for new regulation. nothing ever happened. repbs has congress until 2006 and now it's the demos with control, which has accomplished how much? point one and you have four back. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. received $130,000 from frannie/freddie. he has served about 140 days in congress. thats $928.57 per day. Chris Dodd? should i go on? http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709 and why is it that it is republicans fault that the first bill failed when 40% democrats voted it down? the democrats wanted it to fault to push blame onto the GOP. if it was that dire, the majority could have passed it. THEY DIDN'T! i am done. and to the europeans and everyone else, i am sorry that you have to feel the effects of a collapse based on the government of the United States of America stepping into places it should never have been. Should sound a bit familiar.
The bubble burst 5 years ago? I'll excuse some of your exhuberance to youth, but you can't ignore facts. The bubble didn't burst until about a year or 2 ago. How do I know? Because I bought a house 2.5 years ago, at the height of the bubble. And as anyone who's bought a home can tell you, it's confusing, even for those of us lucky enough to have an education. Not only is it false to say that CRA caused the bad lending, but completely irrespective of who or what caused the bad lending absolutely nobody forced financial firms to make large, highly leveraged bets on the loans. It was conservatives who blocked regulation of credit default swaps. It was conservatives who watched as the housing bubble developed and it was conservatives who blocked any action to try to ensure a soft landing once the bubble popped. It was conservatives who said we had to make the taxes of the ultra-rich individuals who brought this problem upon us as low as possible. It was conservatives who blocked efforts to curb predatory lending and it was conservatives who blocked efforts to investigate fraud more robustly. Studies by the Federal Reserve and Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, among others, have shown that CRA increased lending and homeownership in poor communities without undermining banks' profitability. It's hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. Half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA. Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness. You may be studying politics, economics, etc. in a classroom. I've been doing it in the real world for quite some time. If you're going to bring it, bring it strong or stay at home.
you are correct on the bubble. my father has been warning of a burst for that long and i mixed it up. i would say that it's been 18-24 months ago. if it is not the government that is at fault, then why are we wanting to bail out shady business practices? let's let a bank fail! why wouldn't you do something shady if the government will bail you out? i would. CRA=section 3 and page four of a mortgage application. they question you about the number of kids and your race,ethnicity. why do they need to know that? from a VP of a large mortgage firm in NC, i was told a story of a young woman who went to apply for a loan a couple years ago. she had little cash and with all the money from relatives could only muster a 5% down-payment. It was rejected promptly. When she filled out section three and page four with 0% down, it was accepted. Why? (remember Frannie and Freddie create the application.)
Just wanted to add a couple of other points, in laymen's terms (I tend to get a bit technical on these issues because it's how I earn my living). If I were discussing this with my brother, I'd put it this way: The basic conservative critique seems to be that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) strong-armed banks into giving loans to minorities and low-income folks who subsequently defaulted at higher rates than the norm. That wave of defaults caused the current meltdown. Two things about that argument immediately made me suspicious. 1.) Folks who use single cause logic to explain gigantic complicated phenomena are almost always lying, ignorant or children. 2.) Folks who peddle victimology for giants ("the banks were forced to do it") while decrying the victimology of individual humans ("the white man forced me to do it") are also usually just lying. The Blame The Negroes (BTN) theory satisfies both criteria.
******** that, Purple Kool-Aid is the shit. *sigh* I can't believe I'm watching Rock School, I remember the days