Page 4 of 27 [ 419 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 27  Next

Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

14 Oct 2011, 5:07 am

Inuyasha wrote:

:roll:

Didn't you deny being an MSNBC fan....

Well now that that's out of the bag.


Your pitiless insinuations against other people are nothing less than bullying.


Inuyasha wrote:
As Newt Gingrich pointed out there are two groups, the legit protestors and the leftwing agitators.

What? Because he says so? Of course we just have an opinion here. He can't actually give true proof that these people are illegal, he just tries to sell it with an argument from authority.

Inuyasha wrote:
The Leftwing agitators will show up regardless of what is being protested and trash the place. However, the Legit Protestors have the wrong target and are protesting at the wrong street address.

The wrong what? The wrong what? This doesn't make any sense. It's just empty rhetoric. The wrong street address? What is this? The land of useless metaphors? All you're trying to do is say what they are doing whilst taking sources and blowing them out of proportion. People occupy a bridge. You say it was violent. Turns out that for the most part it wasn't. You change your tack and try to say it was part of a major trunk line in to the city. That doesn't make the protest wrong, fool.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

14 Oct 2011, 5:18 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Cute, except I have already pointed out (though to be fair maybe in a different thread), that Bush tried to reverse course because he realized he screwed up, furthermore so did the Republicans in the House and Senate in 2005, 2006, AND 2007.

And so link me to the thread.

Inuyasha wrote:
Imagine yourself in the place of one of those low-income householders who acquired a property in the late 1990s as a result of the Clinton home-ownership drive. What happened next? Chances are you managed OK for a while, but after a few years found that like most poor Americans, your income wasn’t going up, it was declining. Around 2003, with your credit cards maxed out, you desperately needed to release some equity from your home. Luckily there was equity there to release, so you refinanced for the first time and enjoyed having some real money for a change. A couple of years later a pushy mortgage broker called to suggest you do it all again, squeezing out the last drops of equity and opting for a low-start mortgage. So you did — and that was fine while it lasted, but the interest rate just sky-rocketed. You will never pay off that loan, it is pure poison to you, just like it’s pure poison to the investment bank that ended up with it on its books. You will just walk away. It’s not your fault. It’s not the bank’s fault. And it certainly isn’t George W. Bush’s fault

Trying to ignore that sentence hidden in there aren't you? So basically too few regulations allowed the poor of America to get screwed over by pushy bankers.

Inuyasha wrote:
Bill Clinton’s team, like so many progressives here in Britain, were not content to wait and see what fruits equal opportunities might bring. They felt compelled to secure their equal outcomes by any means necessary, even if that meant debauching institutions, corrupting professions and trying to skew the operation of markets. That only ever leads to chaos.


Corrupting professions? Except that they corrupted themselves by being pushy against poor Americans. Well damn. Seems you just found a one foot fly in your ointment.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Oct 2011, 4:52 pm

Gedrene wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Cute, except I have already pointed out (though to be fair maybe in a different thread), that Bush tried to reverse course because he realized he screwed up, furthermore so did the Republicans in the House and Senate in 2005, 2006, AND 2007.

And so link me to the thread.

Inuyasha wrote:
Imagine yourself in the place of one of those low-income householders who acquired a property in the late 1990s as a result of the Clinton home-ownership drive. What happened next? Chances are you managed OK for a while, but after a few years found that like most poor Americans, your income wasn’t going up, it was declining. Around 2003, with your credit cards maxed out, you desperately needed to release some equity from your home. Luckily there was equity there to release, so you refinanced for the first time and enjoyed having some real money for a change. A couple of years later a pushy mortgage broker called to suggest you do it all again, squeezing out the last drops of equity and opting for a low-start mortgage. So you did — and that was fine while it lasted, but the interest rate just sky-rocketed. You will never pay off that loan, it is pure poison to you, just like it’s pure poison to the investment bank that ended up with it on its books. You will just walk away. It’s not your fault. It’s not the bank’s fault. And it certainly isn’t George W. Bush’s fault

Trying to ignore that sentence hidden in there aren't you? So basically too few regulations allowed the poor of America to get screwed over by pushy bankers.

Inuyasha wrote:
Bill Clinton’s team, like so many progressives here in Britain, were not content to wait and see what fruits equal opportunities might bring. They felt compelled to secure their equal outcomes by any means necessary, even if that meant debauching institutions, corrupting professions and trying to skew the operation of markets. That only ever leads to chaos.


Corrupting professions? Except that they corrupted themselves by being pushy against poor Americans. Well damn. Seems you just found a one foot fly in your ointment.


Actually, they corrupted things by providing incentives for people to borrow money that they couldn't afford to pay back for the purchase of a home.

As far as the attempts to fix things, I can go at least one step further

Look up: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190

With the financial sector in turmoil today, the media and the politicians have started throwing around blame with the same recklessness as lenders threw around credit to create the problem. Politically, the pertinent question is this: Which candidate foresaw the credit crisis and tried to do something about it? As it turns out, John McCain did — and partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago, after an attempt by the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier. McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (via Beltway Snark):
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/m ... c-in-2005/

Another source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... KSoiNbnQY0

Then we have:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs[/youtube]

Also the 2003 article from New York Times:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/busin ... e-mae.html

So, I'm not going to bother to look for the other threads, I will post sources to prove that I actually do know what I'm talking about and that people here have seriously overestimated their knowledge on the subject, and severely underestimated my knowledge on the same subject.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

14 Oct 2011, 6:38 pm

There is absolutely no data to back up the theory that the CRA had any significant impact on the housing crisis. Non-CRA regulated banks had higher default rates and totals. Many other countries also experienced a housing crisis, and they are completely unaffected by the CRA. And then there's this guy, Lee Farkas, who was convicted of mortgage fraud to the tune of $2.9 billion. He also collapsed 2 banks and cost thousands their jobs. Just one guy, a mortgage broker. He was quoted saying that he “could rob a bank with a pencil.” This type of behavior was widespread amongst both the brokers and the banks. This guy just happened to get caught. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/busin ... wanted=all

But back to OWS, it's going global tomorrow. I, for one, am pleased.

http://news.yahoo.com/wall-street-sit-g ... 59242.html



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Oct 2011, 7:37 pm

number5 wrote:
There is absolutely no data to back up the theory that the CRA had any significant impact on the housing crisis. Non-CRA regulated banks had higher default rates and totals. Many other countries also experienced a housing crisis, and they are completely unaffected by the CRA. And then there's this guy, Lee Farkas, who was convicted of mortgage fraud to the tune of $2.9 billion. He also collapsed 2 banks and cost thousands their jobs. Just one guy, a mortgage broker. He was quoted saying that he “could rob a bank with a pencil.” This type of behavior was widespread amongst both the brokers and the banks. This guy just happened to get caught. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/busin ... wanted=all

But back to OWS, it's going global tomorrow. I, for one, am pleased.

http://news.yahoo.com/wall-street-sit-g ... 59242.html


Many other countries were spending outside their means bigtime like Greece, which is what the Democrats were trying to do, they made the Republicans from 2001-2006 look fiscally responsible, which is why the Democrats refused to make a budget.

No matter what you say, it doesn't change the fact that banks in the US were forced to make bad loans by the community reinvestment act or they were sued or other punitive actions were taken.

As to foreign banks going belly up, some of them invested in these bad loans or made other poor decisions.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

14 Oct 2011, 8:00 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
There is absolutely no data to back up the theory that the CRA had any significant impact on the housing crisis. Non-CRA regulated banks had higher default rates and totals. Many other countries also experienced a housing crisis, and they are completely unaffected by the CRA. And then there's this guy, Lee Farkas, who was convicted of mortgage fraud to the tune of $2.9 billion. He also collapsed 2 banks and cost thousands their jobs. Just one guy, a mortgage broker. He was quoted saying that he “could rob a bank with a pencil.” This type of behavior was widespread amongst both the brokers and the banks. This guy just happened to get caught. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/busin ... wanted=all

But back to OWS, it's going global tomorrow. I, for one, am pleased.

http://news.yahoo.com/wall-street-sit-g ... 59242.html


Many other countries were spending outside their means bigtime like Greece, which is what the Democrats were trying to do, they made the Republicans from 2001-2006 look fiscally responsible, which is why the Democrats refused to make a budget.

No matter what you say, it doesn't change the fact that banks in the US were forced to make bad loans by the community reinvestment act or they were sued or other punitive actions were taken.

As to foreign banks going belly up, some of them invested in these bad loans or made other poor decisions.

Your memory is too short, Inuyasha. Who started the two ground wars that are currently bankrupting us, hmmm?



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

14 Oct 2011, 8:34 pm

Inuyasha wrote:


No matter what you say, it doesn't change the fact that banks in the US were forced to make bad loans by the community reinvestment act or they were sued or other punitive actions were taken.



No matter how many times you repeat this,it doesn't change the fact that it's still utter nonsense. :roll:


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Oct 2011, 8:40 pm

LKL wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
There is absolutely no data to back up the theory that the CRA had any significant impact on the housing crisis. Non-CRA regulated banks had higher default rates and totals. Many other countries also experienced a housing crisis, and they are completely unaffected by the CRA. And then there's this guy, Lee Farkas, who was convicted of mortgage fraud to the tune of $2.9 billion. He also collapsed 2 banks and cost thousands their jobs. Just one guy, a mortgage broker. He was quoted saying that he “could rob a bank with a pencil.” This type of behavior was widespread amongst both the brokers and the banks. This guy just happened to get caught. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/busin ... wanted=all

But back to OWS, it's going global tomorrow. I, for one, am pleased.

http://news.yahoo.com/wall-street-sit-g ... 59242.html


Many other countries were spending outside their means bigtime like Greece, which is what the Democrats were trying to do, they made the Republicans from 2001-2006 look fiscally responsible, which is why the Democrats refused to make a budget.

No matter what you say, it doesn't change the fact that banks in the US were forced to make bad loans by the community reinvestment act or they were sued or other punitive actions were taken.

As to foreign banks going belly up, some of them invested in these bad loans or made other poor decisions.

Your memory is too short, Inuyasha. Who started the two ground wars that are currently bankrupting us, hmmm?


Your grasp of basic math is pretty bad.

All discretionary spending could be 0 including military, and we would still be running a substancial deficit due to entitlements. If I remember correctly something like a half trillion dollar deficit.

So the problem is entitlements not military spending. Furthermore we made a mess when we went into those countries, it's only logical to clean up after ourselves, further I would rather fight terrorists overseas than in the US.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

14 Oct 2011, 8:46 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I won't deny that there are some present who are getting stoned, but that hardly describes most of the attendants. Fox News is taking a few incidents, and are blowing them out of proportion in order to paint the whole crowd as hippie stoners. Ed Schultz and Rev. Al Sharpton have been there interviewing protestors, and in fact, most are law abiding citizens, very often with families. They just happen to be concerned and angry about the direction the country has been taking in the last few decades, in which the top 1% of the country are getting richer, while the rest of us slip into poverty.
At least no one showed up with loaded guns - - like at Tea Party rallies.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Even if the media cherry picks who they interview, they still face the problem that they are asking the government to create regulations to fix their last set of regulations, which were intended to fix the regulations before that. It's total insanity. They are also unruly compared to the tea party, they live like pigs unlike the tea party, and unlike tea party protests, there have been a ton of arrests at OWS events. Tea party activists do often carry guns during protests in places where it's legal, but interestingly, there have never been any arrests much less convictions over it. Strange how it works out that the gun-toting protesters stay out of trouble and the "peaceful" protesters get arrested en masse.

I was jut joking about the mace cartoon. What they really need to disperse the protesters is soapy water. :twisted:


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Oct 2011, 9:11 pm

John_Browning wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I won't deny that there are some present who are getting stoned, but that hardly describes most of the attendants. Fox News is taking a few incidents, and are blowing them out of proportion in order to paint the whole crowd as hippie stoners. Ed Schultz and Rev. Al Sharpton have been there interviewing protestors, and in fact, most are law abiding citizens, very often with families. They just happen to be concerned and angry about the direction the country has been taking in the last few decades, in which the top 1% of the country are getting richer, while the rest of us slip into poverty.
At least no one showed up with loaded guns - - like at Tea Party rallies.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Even if the media cherry picks who they interview, they still face the problem that they are asking the government to create regulations to fix their last set of regulations, which were intended to fix the regulations before that. It's total insanity. They are also unruly compared to the tea party, they live like pigs unlike the tea party, and unlike tea party protests, there have been a ton of arrests at OWS events. Tea party activists do often carry guns during protests in places where it's legal, but interestingly, there have never been any arrests much less convictions over it. Strange how it works out that the gun-toting protesters stay out of trouble and the "peaceful" protesters get arrested en masse.

I was jut joking about the mace cartoon. What they really need to disperse the protesters is soapy water. :twisted:


It's a matter of deregulation that opened this whole ugly can of worms of Wall Street corruption and theft.
And as far as the Occupy Wall Street protestors are concerned, they've been performing a sit-in in the same general area for all this time, whereas the Tea party came and went in a single day at their rallies. Had the Tea Party stayed this long, I have no doubt that they'd end up as dirty, litter as much, and even get arrested. Considering that so many of them were packing, legal or otherwise, there might have been deaths involved by now. As a matter of fact, the Occupy Wall Street Protestors have been well behaved considering the circumstances. Also, it should be remembered that there were clear examples of unprovoked police brutality, the most famous being the high ranking cop spraying unarmed female protestors with pepper spray, after which he walked down the street, spraying people indiscriminately, including at least one fellow police officer.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

14 Oct 2011, 9:52 pm

And why are the OWS people being arrested? For walking on a bridge. For sitting in a park. For standing on a sidewalk. Together.

The TP people weren't arrested because they were supporting, and funded by, the wealthy and powerful; the OWS people are arrested because they're doing the opposite.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

14 Oct 2011, 9:59 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Sarcasm: Oh so that explains the drugs...


Yeah, that evil, probably unrepresentative, sample of pot-smoking protesters! If only they stuck to abusing prescription pills like your Country Club Conservative hero.

Image


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

14 Oct 2011, 10:53 pm

John_Browning wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I won't deny that there are some present who are getting stoned, but that hardly describes most of the attendants. Fox News is taking a few incidents, and are blowing them out of proportion in order to paint the whole crowd as hippie stoners. Ed Schultz and Rev. Al Sharpton have been there interviewing protestors, and in fact, most are law abiding citizens, very often with families. They just happen to be concerned and angry about the direction the country has been taking in the last few decades, in which the top 1% of the country are getting richer, while the rest of us slip into poverty.
At least no one showed up with loaded guns - - like at Tea Party rallies.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Even if the media cherry picks who they interview, they still face the problem that they are asking the government to create regulations to fix their last set of regulations, which were intended to fix the regulations before that. It's total insanity. They are also unruly compared to the tea party, they live like pigs unlike the tea party, and unlike tea party protests, there have been a ton of arrests at OWS events. Tea party activists do often carry guns during protests in places where it's legal, but interestingly, there have never been any arrests much less convictions over it. Strange how it works out that the gun-toting protesters stay out of trouble and the "peaceful" protesters get arrested en masse.

I was jut joking about the mace cartoon. What they really need to disperse the protesters is soapy water. :twisted:


As history repeatedly illustrates, the number of arrests in ratio of groups usually reveal a fact opposite your prejudicial assumption. Three very famous instances are the Tiananmen Square Protests, the Bonus Marchers, and and Kristallnacht.

For time constraints and brevity, the Arrests records of Kristallnacht illustrate the propaganda value of numbers of arrests of any "group" members. Perpetrators of the crimes arrested equals zero, but the number of arrested victims of the perpetrators equals 30,000.

With your defective logic, you would conclude that it is interesting "how it works out that the gun-toting protesters stay out of trouble and the 'peaceful' protesters get arrested en masse." Some reports have it that not a Nazi was involved in the self-inflected "insurance scam" by those arrested 30,000 of Hitler's victims, which is utter balderdash.

Then calling the attacks simple foreclosures legalizes everything?

Tadzio



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

14 Oct 2011, 11:02 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
There is absolutely no data to back up the theory that the CRA had any significant impact on the housing crisis. Non-CRA regulated banks had higher default rates and totals. Many other countries also experienced a housing crisis, and they are completely unaffected by the CRA. And then there's this guy, Lee Farkas, who was convicted of mortgage fraud to the tune of $2.9 billion. He also collapsed 2 banks and cost thousands their jobs. Just one guy, a mortgage broker. He was quoted saying that he “could rob a bank with a pencil.” This type of behavior was widespread amongst both the brokers and the banks. This guy just happened to get caught. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/busin ... wanted=all

But back to OWS, it's going global tomorrow. I, for one, am pleased.

http://news.yahoo.com/wall-street-sit-g ... 59242.html


Many other countries were spending outside their means bigtime like Greece, which is what the Democrats were trying to do, they made the Republicans from 2001-2006 look fiscally responsible, which is why the Democrats refused to make a budget.

No matter what you say, it doesn't change the fact that banks in the US were forced to make bad loans by the community reinvestment act or they were sued or other punitive actions were taken.

As to foreign banks going belly up, some of them invested in these bad loans or made other poor decisions.

Your memory is too short, Inuyasha. Who started the two ground wars that are currently bankrupting us, hmmm?


Your grasp of basic math is pretty bad.

All discretionary spending could be 0 including military, and we would still be running a substancial deficit due to entitlements. If I remember correctly something like a half trillion dollar deficit.

So the problem is entitlements not military spending. Furthermore we made a mess when we went into those countries, it's only logical to clean up after ourselves, further I would rather fight terrorists overseas than in the US.

So now your claim is that the Democrats, all by themselves, invented Social Security and Medicare (presumably you think that they invented part D as well?), and kept those programs alive through decades of concerted efforts by the Repubs. to kill them?

Are you sure that's a claim that you want to make, 'Yasha?



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Oct 2011, 11:09 pm

LKL wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
There is absolutely no data to back up the theory that the CRA had any significant impact on the housing crisis. Non-CRA regulated banks had higher default rates and totals. Many other countries also experienced a housing crisis, and they are completely unaffected by the CRA. And then there's this guy, Lee Farkas, who was convicted of mortgage fraud to the tune of $2.9 billion. He also collapsed 2 banks and cost thousands their jobs. Just one guy, a mortgage broker. He was quoted saying that he “could rob a bank with a pencil.” This type of behavior was widespread amongst both the brokers and the banks. This guy just happened to get caught. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/busin ... wanted=all

But back to OWS, it's going global tomorrow. I, for one, am pleased.

http://news.yahoo.com/wall-street-sit-g ... 59242.html


Many other countries were spending outside their means bigtime like Greece, which is what the Democrats were trying to do, they made the Republicans from 2001-2006 look fiscally responsible, which is why the Democrats refused to make a budget.

No matter what you say, it doesn't change the fact that banks in the US were forced to make bad loans by the community reinvestment act or they were sued or other punitive actions were taken.

As to foreign banks going belly up, some of them invested in these bad loans or made other poor decisions.

Your memory is too short, Inuyasha. Who started the two ground wars that are currently bankrupting us, hmmm?


Your grasp of basic math is pretty bad.

All discretionary spending could be 0 including military, and we would still be running a substancial deficit due to entitlements. If I remember correctly something like a half trillion dollar deficit.

So the problem is entitlements not military spending. Furthermore we made a mess when we went into those countries, it's only logical to clean up after ourselves, further I would rather fight terrorists overseas than in the US.

So now your claim is that the Democrats, all by themselves, invented Social Security and Medicare (presumably you think that they invented part D as well?), and kept those programs alive through decades of concerted efforts by the Repubs. to kill them?

Are you sure that's a claim that you want to make, 'Yasha?


That's you saying I claimed something.

What I'm saying is that Democrats seem unable to accept reality as to where the problem is.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

14 Oct 2011, 11:39 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
There is absolutely no data to back up the theory that the CRA had any significant impact on the housing crisis. Non-CRA regulated banks had higher default rates and totals. Many other countries also experienced a housing crisis, and they are completely unaffected by the CRA. And then there's this guy, Lee Farkas, who was convicted of mortgage fraud to the tune of $2.9 billion. He also collapsed 2 banks and cost thousands their jobs. Just one guy, a mortgage broker. He was quoted saying that he “could rob a bank with a pencil.” This type of behavior was widespread amongst both the brokers and the banks. This guy just happened to get caught. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/busin ... wanted=all

But back to OWS, it's going global tomorrow. I, for one, am pleased.

http://news.yahoo.com/wall-street-sit-g ... 59242.html


Many other countries were spending outside their means bigtime like Greece, which is what the Democrats were trying to do, they made the Republicans from 2001-2006 look fiscally responsible, which is why the Democrats refused to make a budget.

No matter what you say, it doesn't change the fact that banks in the US were forced to make bad loans by the community reinvestment act or they were sued or other punitive actions were taken.

As to foreign banks going belly up, some of them invested in these bad loans or made other poor decisions.

Your memory is too short, Inuyasha. Who started the two ground wars that are currently bankrupting us, hmmm?


Your grasp of basic math is pretty bad.

All discretionary spending could be 0 including military, and we would still be running a substancial deficit due to entitlements. If I remember correctly something like a half trillion dollar deficit.

So the problem is entitlements not military spending. Furthermore we made a mess when we went into those countries, it's only logical to clean up after ourselves, further I would rather fight terrorists overseas than in the US.

So now your claim is that the Democrats, all by themselves, invented Social Security and Medicare (presumably you think that they invented part D as well?), and kept those programs alive through decades of concerted efforts by the Repubs. to kill them?

Are you sure that's a claim that you want to make, 'Yasha?


That's you saying I claimed something.

What I'm saying is that Democrats seem unable to accept reality as to where the problem is.

Your claim was that the Democrats want to spend and spend, like the Greek government. Then your claim was that the problem spending was with 'entitlements,' otherwise known as 'Earned Benefits.' Ergo, the Democrats are responsible for the Earned Benefit programs.