True Cause of House-Market Crash

It's curious that the only people that got hurt by the crash were poor.

And those that benefited from their poverty were rich.

 

Truth by assertion?

 

The only thing wrong with you statement is the beginning, the middle, and the end.
Try learning what you're babbling about.

 

The argument in this thread misses a gigantic point. It was not the poor looking for entitlements who forced through the CRA and its attendant cousins: it was the financial sector and the construction sector. They had (and have) a lot of influence on Congress and they wanted to increase their level of activity and thus their profits so they had Congress modify the market so they could get what they want.

The whole history of the USA in the past three decades has been one of crony capitalism, where powerful lobbies have pushed the legislative agenda of Presidents and Congressional sessions. Both conservatives and liberals have seen benefits from bigger government and the very rich have seen the most benefit from government actions. The free market in the USA has been more under attack from business interests than it has been from entitlement lobbies or socialists.

The only thing that was ignored during this whole period was that there wasn't enough money to pay for all the programs, incentives and tax cuts. Now the powers-that-be have realized that fact they now wish to rein in the deficit (because it represents a long-term threat to the entire economy) by having everyone else feel the pain while reducing the level of hurt they feel to an absolute minimum. This is the position the Republicans are putting forward while the Democrats are dragging their heels about reducing the deficit but who do wish to spread the pain more equitably.

 

1) What percentage of bad loans were CRA loans?

We don't need to guess. It is a matter of record.

Here is the vote of the Democrats on HR 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which was the *only* bill to regulate F/F to ever be passed (in 2005) by a chamber of the Republican controlled Congress.

Party - Ayes - Nays
Republican 209 15
Democratic 122 74

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll547.xml

And as to who blocked it, here is the the Bush administration's response to this, the only bill to regulate F/F ever passed by either chamber of the Republican controlled Congress:

"the Administration opposes the bill"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851

You missed that, eh?

Maybe you need a more objective, accurate source of information.

 

5 Democrats in a 2004 hearing on Raines.

What about the other 250 or so Democrats?

 

Yap Yap Yap,
Everybody was hurt by the recession, and I always ask you and you never answer, HOW did the rich benefit from the poverty levels?

Once again, you can't answer and you won't, because you don't know what you are talking about and you know what you are saying isn't true.

That was the only bill ever *Passed* according to you, in 2003, a bill was attempted to be passed, once again blocked, lacking a congressional supermajority, just a regular majority.

Republicans may have controlled congress, but they didn't have the majority enough to pass the bill:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

^In 2003, republicans had a senate majority of 51...thats not a majority to be enough to apply certain laws or change certain amendments.

 

Great post.

Look no further than the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and Graham-Leach-Bliley.

 

You are indeed correct, JSP.



Liberals want the good life for themselves and not for future generations of young Americans.

 

Yeah, liberals do not fight for increased civil rights, stronger education, higher minimum wages, healthcare for children, etc, etc,. You are confusing liberals with conservatives.

 

Actually, thats a lie, liberals fight for less rights, they fight to make schools into daycares, higher minimum wages are useless due to inflation, and conservatives also want healthcare for children.

You are confusing politics in general.

And they are also against freedom in general, liberals want a fascist style totalitarian government, even if they deny it, their actions prove otherwise.

 

Is that why social democracies across the globe perfom better in almost all social and health factors, i.e., infant mortality rates, life expectancy, crime, drug use, incarceration rates, social mobility, etc.

www.equalitytrust.org

Learn the definition of Fascism.

 

Wow, an ultra leftist liberal org. determines that the liberal way is best! What a surprise.

Life expectancy rates. A major FAVORITE of leftist universal health cars advocates. England and national health care DOES have a longer life expectancy rate. 90 days longer. Cuba, the bastion of communism, the Siamese twin of liberalism has more doctors and hospitals per capita than any other nation, AND free health care for all. How much better is their life expectancy than the USA? Oops, its not better, its exactly the same. About a third of the EU universal health care nations have life expectancy lower than the US. And those higher, ARE FROM A FEW MONTHS TO A COUPLE OF YEARS HIGHER. All of which could be accounted for by traditional family units still existing in those countries. Not liberal Utopian bullsh*t.

 

It is painful when you encounter research, facts, numbers, figures, studies and real-world examples which destroy your entire political worldview. We understand, let it out.

 

Ha...haha...ha

We did need better healthcare, but it could have been solved easily with simple regulations, not a complete failure overhaul.

Nice try, people in europe and asia eat better food...as in they barely eat fastfood compared to the U.S and I've been to europe and food in general seems healthier, as in less preservatives and more natural foods. That has nothing to do with healthcare law...

Drug use has to do with enforcement if you are talking about illegal drugs...which one again has nothing to do with healthcare, and if your are talking about medications...people buy OTC medicine at their own free will and doctors prescribe medicine to solve or help the patient...once again, nothing to do with the healthcare law or aka universal healthcare.

Not to mention, everything in america will be at a higher scale in measurements due to substantially larger populations compared to countries of europe (if thats what you are comparing). A 300,000,000 will have higher numbers in just about every category compared to a country of a 50,000,000 population.

Thats what you do, use misleading evidence to make an invalid point .

^Not so fast buddy

 

The same old, baseless talking points used to counter facts and real-life examples of reality. Change the channel once in awhile...

 

I posted facts, SOME universal health care nations do have longer life spans and some don't. Your numbers, research, figures, and studies bore that out if you care to read your own propaganda. I'm 70, have been in a serious auto crash, have had a heart attack, been shot, and blown up. I know what DEATH looks like. And I'm not willing to spend several TRILLION dollars and bankrupt the nation so I can live 11, or 13, or 3, or 25 months longer. I love my rare USDA PRIME beef, and my good booze. I could do away with all that, live longer than universal health countries AND save money. Since I'm not willing to do that for a little xtra time, I'm not willing to bankrupt my great grandchildren for it either. I'll opt for the quality of life, rather than the length of it.

 

You should be embarrassed. I just disproved all your points and you can't disprove any of mine...

Classic

 

S. 900 [106th]: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Nov 4, 1999 3:30PM

An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.

Yea: 90 (90%)
Nay: 8 (8%)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-354

the bill passed by a 90% to 8% margin and signed into law by...................Bill Clinton.

 

authored by Rubin, signed by clinton.

 

If only more americans were this patriotic. Liberals are cowards.

 

Conservatives are traitorous idiots.