I'm a Conservative and I Approve Regulating

[bobc455]

Originally Posted by theholycow

That's an interesting point. I'd like to see some statistics on how many loans were influenced by "affirmative action"-like programs, and how many failed (expressed as percentage of total loans and percentage of failed loans).

No hard numbers (and more than a tad racist IMO), but it has an interesting video:

http://www.davidduke.com/general/how...nomy_4850.html

And don't forget the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...s_Act_of_1992).

On the other hand, anyone who suggests eliminating these programs is also labeled a racist.

-BC

(p.s. IMO: One more way how government intervention causes problems, and one more reason that Libertarianism is the only logical political affiliation! )

[bobc455]

Originally Posted by VetteOwner

a hybrid design eh?

Vetteowner, did you mean that post for a different thread?

-BC

[VetteOwner]

Originally Posted by bobc455

Vetteowner, did you mean that post for a different thread?

-BC

lol i should have quoted RIDE up there

[Snax]

Originally Posted by bobc455

No hard numbers (and more than a tad racist IMO), but it has an interesting video:

http://www.davidduke.com/general/how...nomy_4850.html

And don't forget the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...s_Act_of_1992).

On the other hand, anyone who suggests eliminating these programs is also labeled a racist.

-BC

(p.s. IMO: One more way how government intervention causes problems, and one more reason that Libertarianism is the only logical political affiliation! )

All these acts required banks to do was to treat ALL people fairly. They outlawed "Redlining" which prevents a lender from stuffing minorities into higher rate loans when they really qualified for the better rate. I.e., the revision to the Community Reinvestment Act in 2007 was intended to eliminate rate jacking which was a strong driver in the number of defaults!

The biggest screw up of the entire process was when Clinton signed off on this turd in 1999. That's what turned the banks and securities trade into the casino business that allowed top executives to short sell the long term future of their companies for short term profits. Worse yet, the idea of 'too big to fail' was something of considerable concern well before GWB ever got into office - with the knowledge that being too big to fail would require the government to cover losses nearly entirely, long after the looters of the corporate wealth had run off with the booty.

As such, the Community Reinvestment Act and the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 are red herrings to what really happened: We were all robbed - and minorities and sub-prime borrowers merely became the leading indicators of that theft.

[bowtieguy]

what about the big stink on AIG? the bonuses are just a fraction of what was given to them, and now we're finding out that this was known beforehand! once again it's perception(or misperception) of the american people. their anger is placed on the corp execs moreso than the govt execs.

Bob,

i'm w/ ya on the racist thing. but, i don't descriminate...

i think the prez, secretary of treasury, speaker of the house, and senate majority leader are all in over their heads and acting just to act while sneaking in their liberal agendas.

[bobc455]

Originally Posted by Snax

All these acts required banks to do was to treat ALL people fairly.

Somehow I don't understand how giving mortgages at 10.5% to poor people is treating anyone fairly- the poor people bought stuff they couldn't afford and got in (more) financial trouble, and now everyone else is suffering too because the banks (and therefore the whole economy) were thrown into chaos.

Actually, now that I say it, of course it makes sense! What was I thinking!!! After all, that's what a liberal typically strives for- suffering for everybody, as long as it is EQUAL suffering. Drag everyone down to the worst possible scenario in the name of "fairness".

-BC

p.s. Speaking of racism, I happened to come across the following:

Proud to be White

Michael Richards makes his point, better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point.

This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act. He makes some very interesting points...

Someone finally said it. How many are actually paying attention to this? There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.

And then there are just Americans. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'... and that's OK.

But when I call you, ******, Kike, Towel head, Sand-******, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink20.. You call me a racist.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you... so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day.

You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day.

You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.

You have the NAACP. You have BET... If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.

If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.

If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that??

A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.

There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US. Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

I am proud... But you call me a racist.

Why is it that only whites can be racists??

That's why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won't stand up for ourselves!

BE PROUD TO BE WHITE!

It's not a crime YET... but getting very close!

[Snax]

Originally Posted by bobc455

Somehow I don't understand how giving mortgages at 10.5% to poor people is treating anyone fairly- the poor people bought stuff they couldn't afford and got in (more) financial trouble, and now everyone else is suffering too because the banks (and therefore the whole economy) were thrown into chaos.

Actually, now that I say it, of course it makes sense! What was I thinking!!! After all, that's what a liberal typically strives for- suffering for everybody, as long as it is EQUAL suffering. Drag everyone down to the worst possible scenario in the name of "fairness".

-BC

Illustrating that you completely missed the point: If poor people can't afford 10.5% loans, then they should not have been given the loans. Again, nobody forced them.

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by Snax

All these acts required banks to do was to treat ALL people fairly.

from my first link...

In the early 1990s the Boston Fed did all that it could to fabricate "evidence" of widespread lending discrimination against racial minorities. But when Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer of Forbes magazine asked Boston Fed official Alicia Munnel what evidence of discrimination she really had, she was forced to admit that she had none.

and my third...

Soon after taking office Clinton began jawboning banks to end redlining practices and deputized then Attorney General Janet Reno as his enforcer. Reno made it indelibly clear that banks better lend and insurance companies’ damn well better insure.

Clinton’s cajoling had wild success among mortgage issuers as well as insurers who wouldn’t insure mortgages or houses in those redlined leper –like colonies. They lost their good business sense triggering “creative financing” and a host of mortgage loan “stocks” and all sorts of things that propped up the mess until last year when the house of cards tumbled.

It may have taken three-quarters of a century but as Reverend Jeremiah Wright so inelegantly pointed out “the chicken have come home to roost.”

[Snax]

Most of the recent defaults were not written in the 90's however, nor even in the first term of the BUSH presidency.

The whole redlining issue and false argument of forcing banks to lend to people who couldn't afford it is a distraction from what the banks were really doing: Lending money they did not have.

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by Snax

The whole redlining issue and false argument of forcing banks to lend to people who couldn't afford it is a distraction from what the banks were really doing: Lending money they did not have.

and gov't interfering where it ought not; and individuals accepting loans they could not repay.

bottom line: we are all equal in worth; however we are NOT all equal in respect to integrity, stature, wealth, etc. and the govt has no legit position even so much as intimidating the direction of private business.