Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 155
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    am I to presume then, that you and your unfluorinated neighbors are intending to vote for Coakley ??

    (worcester must be delightful -- its not even flourinated !!)
    pardon the gafaw, i spelt in wrongly

    was fluoridation to which I spoke, and this has no bearing on potential votes for Coak
    There are four lights.
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Well, sorry, deregulation is in fact a part of the "Great Recession." You not wanting it listed as a reason does not make it so.
    Oh no--please do list it--in detail, not the meaningless soundbite coverall answer that people who don't understand the first thing about Regulation like to spew out.

    I would agree--there was a gross abdication of Responsibility in ENFORCING existing regulations, specifically in regards to Fannie mae and Freddie mac--where many politicians drained millions, while orchestrating one of the biggest failures.

    What I'm saying is that I am not simply going to accept the propaganda answer of "Deregulation" as if that explains anything. Regulatory issues may very well be a reason, but parroting a talking point is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Notice under Bush how gas mysteriously went from $1.85 per gallon to over $4.00 per gallon? Why are gas prices so much more stable now, at the pump?
    It's related to the global oil market and demand. Based on your statement here, it seems you might be thinking it is something else. Further, following $4.00 gas prices, they dropped--DURING the Bush Administration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    There is also the fact that there were tax cuts to the wealthy that were UNFUNDED or covered. Lost revenues there.
    No, actually, you are wrong. These "tax cuts" actually led to an increase in money into the US Treasury, and in fact, this claim of "tax cuts for the wealthy" led to more of the actual tax burden being carried by the wealthiest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    2 UNFUNDED wars that were not ever included into any of yearly budgets during bush. Medicare pt. D was UNFUNDED. 170 billion to pharmaceutical companies and we lose the power to negotiate costs for medicine. NO child left behind, UNFUNDED. The stimulus was actually Bush's program, also UNFUNDED.
    You keep saying "Unfunded" as if that is meaningful. The government spends money on all sorts of things that are "unfunded". While I do not support this, How did this CAUSE the Recession? Also--do you realize that in terms of being "unfunded" the same applies to the Stimulus bill, the Omnibus spending bills that Obama signed (filled with various pet projects and earmarks)--also "unfunded." Of course, that term is somewhat...inaccurate. Of course they are funded--by borrowing or printing money.

    The stimulus was Bush's Program? Really--that's interesting, I specifically recall President Obama signing that into Law, not President Bush.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    You say that the DEMS are spend happy, but at least they plan to raise funds for what they spend with a pay as you go system. Also, the 2 wars are now included into the budget. The REPS just spent money that seemingly came from nowhere.
    No, Factually Democrats have increased spending--even beyond the reckless level of the Previous years (which I think you will find, Democrats supported)--all "unfunded" as you say.

    Perhaps you aren't understanding--all of this borrows money against our future. You rail about it being a problem under Bush, but apparently have no problem with it now Under Obama. There is no difference--excepting that Obama has increased spending even further.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    After 8 years of this, we now have "The Great Recession"
    I'm sorry, but you haven't explained anything. You've merely placed blame.
    Reckless spending is a problem indeed, but how did that CAUSE a Recession?

    See--all I'm seeing here is reiteration of someone's blame game, without any attempt to understand anything about what actually caused these problems. I don't see much more than the parroting of the nonsense that fosters the idea that the President somehow controls the economy.

    The Closest thing I've heard to a reason (however unexplained) is that it is too much spending. I'll remind you that President Obama stated specifically--SPENDING IS STIMULUS. So, is it or not? If you want to blame Spending Under President Bush as a reason the Recession occurred, then you cannot say that this same sort of reckless spending expanded greatly is the solution.

    It doesn't many sense of any sort.

    KAM
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Oh no--please do list it--in detail, not the meaningless soundbite coverall answer that people who don't understand the first thing about Regulation like to spew out.

    I would agree--there was a gross abdication of Responsibility in ENFORCING existing regulations, specifically in regards to Fannie mae and Freddie mac--where many politicians drained millions, while orchestrating one of the biggest failures.

    What I'm saying is that I am not simply going to accept the propaganda answer of "Deregulation" as if that explains anything. Regulatory issues may very well be a reason, but parroting a talking point is not.



    It's related to the global oil market and demand. Based on your statement here, it seems you might be thinking it is something else. Further, following $4.00 gas prices, they dropped--DURING the Bush Administration.



    No, actually, you are wrong. These "tax cuts" actually led to an increase in money into the US Treasury, and in fact, this claim of "tax cuts for the wealthy" led to more of the actual tax burden being carried by the wealthiest.



    You keep saying "Unfunded" as if that is meaningful. The government spends money on all sorts of things that are "unfunded". While I do not support this, How did this CAUSE the Recession? Also--do you realize that in terms of being "unfunded" the same applies to the Stimulus bill, the Omnibus spending bills that Obama signed (filled with various pet projects and earmarks)--also "unfunded." Of course, that term is somewhat...inaccurate. Of course they are funded--by borrowing or printing money.

    The stimulus was Bush's Program? Really--that's interesting, I specifically recall President Obama signing that into Law, not President Bush.



    No, Factually Democrats have increased spending--even beyond the reckless level of the Previous years (which I think you will find, Democrats supported)--all "unfunded" as you say.

    Perhaps you aren't understanding--all of this borrows money against our future. You rail about it being a problem under Bush, but apparently have no problem with it now Under Obama. There is no difference--excepting that Obama has increased spending even further.



    I'm sorry, but you haven't explained anything. You've merely placed blame.
    Reckless spending is a problem indeed, but how did that CAUSE a Recession?

    See--all I'm seeing here is reiteration of someone's blame game, without any attempt to understand anything about what actually caused these problems. I don't see much more than the parroting of the nonsense that fosters the idea that the President somehow controls the economy.

    The Closest thing I've heard to a reason (however unexplained) is that it is too much spending. I'll remind you that President Obama stated specifically--SPENDING IS STIMULUS. So, is it or not? If you want to blame Spending Under President Bush as a reason the Recession occurred, then you cannot say that this same sort of reckless spending expanded greatly is the solution.

    It doesn't many sense of any sort.

    KAM
    I have given you reasons for the recession but you just choose to deny them. Your , Faux News, revisionist history will not work on me...




    In this article, from conservative site,
    "Bush blamed the current problem on lenders, borrowers, federally sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and investment institutions, that sought, pushed, promoted and profited from easy credit."
    Now where did this "easy credit" come from? Deregulation!!!

    CNSNews.com - Declaring ‘Entire Economy’ in Danger, Bush Calls Bipartisan Powwow for Biggest Bailout Ever
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  4. #24  
    Perhaps deregulation was based on the idea that industry could police itself. I believe there were still checks in place but the overseers (including those in the government) did a bad job here. In my opinion, it's too bad we ever did away with currency backed by the gold standard. All these problems would have been obvious a lot sooner (with much less regulation) under such a policy. As it is now, we and our children owe our lives to the repayment of Treasury bonds to the Chinese and other foreign investors.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  5. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    There -- you see everyone ?? He used the "m" word: m***** !!

    I insist that Mr. Eastwood resign forthwith from his moderator leadership post !!
    I could resign but what would I do after? Ah, yes, I could run as a Democrat for the US Senate in West Virginia! Or maybe I could become an actor and get my own sitcom about being a bartender in Boston.

    I want them -- (and please forgive me for uttering anything even slightly complimentary toward that side) to be more like GOPers -- i.e indifferent to the truth, immune to the pull of conscience, and uninterested in anything but the pursuit and grasp of power.
    Nice. Smear the other side and portray them as having committed the most despicable things in order to cover for the despicable things you feel your own party should do. But its okay because its all done in love, right?

    If your in a wrestling match with a shark, reminding him of your membership in the Jacques Cousteau society seems a bit self indulgent.
    If he was a well-read shark he might remind you that Jacques Cousteau advocated the rapid elimination of most of the world's human population and he's just helping the world toward that goal.

    How long did these GOPers contrive to deny Dems their 60th Senate seat from Minnesota ?? Do they feel even slightly embarrassed by their perfidy ??

    Of course not -- denying Al Franken his seat enabled them to stall the heath care legislative process, robbing it of its momentum, eventually forcing ugly compromise after ugly compromise -- until what got produced ultimately was loved by no one.
    As mentioned already, this is a very poor comparison.
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I have given you reasons for the recession but you just choose to deny them. Your , Faux News, revisionist history will not work on me...
    Please do grow up. When are you people going to stop crying about Fox news, and using it as a distraction whenever you don't know what you are talking about?

    All you've done is list some events. You've done nothing to explain how you think that actually caused a Recession. You don't know or refuse to answer.

    Your parroting of blame isn't an answer to my question. If you don't want to answer, just say so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    In this article, from conservative site,
    "Bush blamed the current problem on lenders, borrowers, federally sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and investment institutions, that sought, pushed, promoted and profited from easy credit."
    Now where did this "easy credit" come from? Deregulation!!!
    Oh, "deregulation" well, that explains everything just perfectly. Do you not understand that stating a one word reason--which is your belief is not an explanation of how this occurred? Do you realize how vacant of an answer that is?

    Let me put it to you another way. If there were ZERO regulations at all, is that the CAUSE or is some other occurrence which actually has an effect the cause?

    What regulation do you suggest would have prevented this recession or any of the actual actions that led to it? If this is Deregulation, then what specific regulation are you referring to that was in place and then removed that CAUSED this recession?

    At best, a lack of regulation (if you knew what one or ones you were talking about) would simply not allow for some action--it isn't the action in itself.

    I know this is dangerous territory here, given knowledge of other discussions, but let me TRY a parallel. If someone is murdered, is the CAUSE the person committing murder or the lack of a law preventing murder? Is it the action that has an actual effect, or does (in your mind) the rule cause or prevent something from occurring? Obviously, the existence of a law doesn't actually physically restrain someone from committing murder.

    The absence of a Regulation doesn't actually DO anything. Some action causes the effect. Absence of regulation isn't an action--its a condition. Do you understand.

    Now, you mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--who caused the actions that went on there? Who actually DID something that had a bad effect?

    You're trying to say that the blame lies with the people who didn't PREVENT the action, rather than those who performed the action. That's the BEST possible position your "deregulation" claim can say, and of course even that is overstated.

    KAM
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Perhaps deregulation was based on the idea that industry could police itself. I believe there were still checks in place but the overseers (including those in the government) did a bad job here. In my opinion, it's too bad we ever did away with currency backed by the gold standard. All these problems would have been obvious a lot sooner (with much less regulation) under such a policy. As it is now, we and our children owe our lives to the repayment of Treasury bonds to the Chinese and other foreign investors.
    Yes, in fact, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regularly engaged in questionable, if not criminal practices. These are HIGHLY regulated entities...or they supposedly are. Clearly there was a breakdown in the effective regulation.

    But what's the answer "More regulation." Well, actually, these GSEs were cited for various violations. There isn't a lack of Regulation--there is a lack of consequences.

    So, essentially, government front organizations, run by politicians or their pals, get away with wrecking our economy--or at least largely contributing to that, and then skate away. The solution...more government. To reiterate...the solution is to hand more power to the people who helped create the problem in the first place.

    I've got another idea--how about you get government out of the Mortgage business. How about you stop enabling (or even demanding) that Banks provide loans to people who can't afford them, and instead--let private enterprise make their own decisions and live by the consequences. If they make bad loans, they go out of business, and banks that DO make good loans stay in business and profit.

    Now, this mess has its roots going back at least to Jimmy Carter, and the failure to stop this abuse of government (harming the people) is a failure of GOVERNMENT. Now leftist little attack dogs want to make this George Bush's problem--depending on the ignorance of the public to understand the issue.

    KAM
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Please do grow up. When are you people going to stop crying about Fox news, and using it as a distraction whenever you don't know what you are talking about?
    Why can't FOX News be accountable for what they put out as "truth?"

    Oh, "deregulation" well, that explains everything just perfectly. Do you not understand that stating a one word reason--which is your belief is not an explanation of how this occurred? Do you realize how vacant of an answer that is?
    Here is how it works...

    Banks and lending companies were given the OK (deregulated) to accept "no money down" and "stated income" loans to people they knew could not pay them back. They then took these junk loans and sold them to bigger banks. They have a $500,000.00 loan they know they will not get paid back in full, so they sell that to a bigger bank for $400,000.00. Small lending companies made a killing and cut and ran. Now the big banks are stuck with billions of dollars out in loans that, come to find out, they can not get paid back on.

    Ad in outragious spending by the government, 2 wars, and other contributing factors, you have a recession... Obviously Obama's fault, all alone....

    I know this is dangerous territory here, given knowledge of other discussions, but let me TRY a parallel. If someone is murdered, is the CAUSE the person committing murder or the lack of a law preventing murder? Is it the action that has an actual effect, or does (in your mind) the rule cause or prevent something from occurring? Obviously, the existence of a law doesn't actually physically restrain someone from committing murder.

    KAM
    So, another way of looking at it, if we legalized murder, you would not expect there to be a jump in the number of murders?
    Last edited by Kenanator; 01/18/2010 at 03:34 PM.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    There -- you see everyone ?? He used the "m" word: m***** !!

    I insist that Mr. Eastwood resign forthwith from his moderator leadership post !!
    Dear BARYE,

    If Mr. Eastwood cannot use the "m" word: m***** !!, then should use the "a" word: a** !!?

    Inquiring minds wish to know.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Now where did this "easy credit" come from? Deregulation!!!
    Actually, it came from Barney Frank.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    There -- you see everyone ?? He used the "m" word: m***** !!

    I insist that Mr. Eastwood resign forthwith from his moderator leadership post !!
    Never say anything bad about Mr. Eastwood or Mr. Norris (or for that matter Ahhnold). They might use it against you in a bad dream!

    As much as you are joking about Groovy giving up his moderator position, I have to say that moderating is a job that few like to do, and I thank those who volunteer for that thankless job!
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  12. #32  
    After listening to the campaign ads on the car radio tonight, I have to report that Martha has been assimilated by the Borg and has gained power in recruiting others. Several ads were from supposedly "non-political" organizations including one named "Emily's List", apparently they are a pro-choice organization. They misrepresented Scott's actual position on reproductive rights issues. Another ad was by a union saying that we need to elect Martha. (I wonder why? hmmm) They pretty much all said Scott Brown is not who you think he is, and that in order to protect the Borg, you need to vote for Martha! ("Resistance is futile!")
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Actually, it came from Barney Frank.
    Not just him. Reagan is the one who really got dergulation started while both Bush's and Clinton followed suit.

    It was W that put the final nail in the mortgage industries coffin.

    REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON HOMEOWNERSHIP
    at the Department of Housing and Urban Development
    Washington, D.C.
    June 18, 2002, 10:30 A.M. EDT


    "...And so what are the barriers that we can deal with here in Washington? Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. People take a look at the down payment, they say that's too high, I'm not buying. They may have the desire to buy, but they don't have the wherewithal to handle the down payment. We can deal with that. And so I've asked Congress to fully fund an American Dream down payment fund which will help a low-income family to qualify to buy, to buy."...
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  14.    #34  
    catastrophe.

    BARYE has spent that last few days immersed in mournful wailing and paralyzed lamentations.

    But what else is there to be done... What can be done ??

    Tonight in Boston transpired an epochal nightmare that makes pale the Roman sacking of the Hebrew Temple.

    I feel exactly like Tyrannosaurus Rex the day after the meteor fell on him...

    Oh god !??! Massachusetts ?

    Massachusetts !!!???!!

    The horror ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  15. #35  
    I'm sorry you feel that way BARYE. You're lucky to have heard this message from Massachusetts, because had the rest of the country had a say on this matter, the message would have been much louder. BTW, the meteor fell on a "her" and not a "him" dinosaur. Obama told me this in a dream last night. ;(
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  16.    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I'm sorry you feel that way BARYE. You're lucky to have heard this message from Massachusetts, because had the rest of the country had a say on this matter, the message would have been much louder. BTW, the meteor fell on a "her" and not a "him" dinosaur. Obama told me this in a dream last night. ;(
    Forgive me -- but I must be brief because I've been so blinded by the molten salt of my agonized tears, that I can barely see my keyboard through my bloody eyes.

    But yes, it was a "she" that got crushed by that nude Cosmo posing meteor...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Forgive me ...yes, it was a "she" that got crushed by that nude Cosmo posing meteor...
    I'm glad to see that you have a little bit of humor left in you!

    Try and think of this as a blessing in disguise. If the republicans now don't move forward on some form of healthcare reform (ie: they completely dismiss the idea) they will end up being the ones with egg on their faces. The ideal situation will be to see healthcare reform change from a "buy-partisan" effort to a bipartisan one. I really don't think all is lost. In the final campaign debate, Scott Brown indicated not that he wanted to kill reform, but simply that he wanted a 'do-over' (my words here). I see a bill with a more fair set of concessions, and less arrogant democratic leadership as being the result. I just hope the republicans (who are still in the minority) can temper their sheepish joy enough to work together to get things done.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Why can't FOX News be accountable for what they put out as "truth?"
    They certainly can be--I just haven't seen any indication that your "truth" is any more objective than that of Fox News. I'm just sick of this whining about Fox, while you've got wholehearted Propaganda machines like MSNBC doing the same for the opposite side. We don't have unbiased news (or very little of it), but to keep pointing to ONE (the one opposite you) while ignoring the others that are wildly biased is a bit disingenuous I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Here is how it works...

    Banks and lending companies were given the OK (deregulated) to accept "no money down" and "stated income" loans to people they knew could not pay them back. They then took these junk loans and sold them to bigger banks. They have a $500,000.00 loan they know they will not get paid back in full, so they sell that to a bigger bank for $400,000.00. Small lending companies made a killing and cut and ran. Now the big banks are stuck with billions of dollars out in loans that, come to find out, they can not get paid back on.
    No--how it works is that Government puppets enable, encourage and at some points insist (with the help of their pet pressure groups like Acorn--represented by people such as Barack Obama in his community organizing days) that banks go against good business decisions. They (stupidly) agree to do this, because they've got Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saying buying all this garbage up--making it APPEAR as if this is no-risk. Of course, we know that's not true--and the American Taxpayer is on the hook for Billions to bail them out--Fannie and Freddie (no "Bank tax" for them, I notice).

    So, this isn't the result of Deregulation--it is the result of Government-sponsored manipulation. Government is at the root of this problem--helping to CREATE this whole crisis. While the Bush administration was part of the problem, they didn't create it, but they did fail to fix it...along with Congress of course. You seem to want to neatly package this and use it as a club against specific political groups or people that you hate. Well, that's helping to insure that the problem will never be fixed.

    Your desire to use situations to forward the same old mantra of the left, with inaccurate slogan accusations like "Deregulation" as your straw man villain is harmful, because it allows the real much more guilty parties to skate free.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Ad in outragious spending by the government, 2 wars, and other contributing factors, you have a recession... Obviously Obama's fault, all alone....
    Did I say it was Obama's fault? No--you are the one with the simplistic views of the situation, not me. Outrageous spending (which Obama happens to have greatly expanded, not changed) is a problem, but I still am not sure how this CAUSED a Recession. It caused a devaluation of our currency, and increased our Debt (all things the Obama Administration is happily accelerating I might add), which is of course bad. Funny, how this agent of Change is so eagerly continuing ALL of the worst economic policies of the Bush administration. What's funny (if it wasn't so harmful) is that we've got people, such as yourself, who moan about how horrible the Bush administration is for doing the exact same things (to a lesser degree), but when the Obama Administration does it--you think its somehow acceptable.

    In my (consistent) view, it is harmful whoever does it--you on the other hand, apparently see this in an entirely political light--without objectivity. Or, is it that President Obama is making a fool of everyone who supported him, and you just can't admit it? Is it just too painful to admit that you've been hoodwinked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So, another way of looking at it, if we legalized murder, you would not expect there to be a jump in the number of murders?
    We might, but legal status doesn't CAUSE something to happen. The murderer would be responsible in either way, whereas you blame the law for the action. That is logically and factually wrong.

    "Deregulation" is an ignorant scapegoat--a massive dumbing down of the situation, and ignoring the actual causes. I know it works for propaganda purposes, but it isn't accurate.

    KAM
  19. #39  
    Kenanator, KAM1138,
    here's a statistic that might be relevant to Kenanator's question:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator
    So, another way of looking at it, if we legalized murder, ...
    We did. (see Roe vs Wade).
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator
    ... you would not expect there to be a jump in the number of murders?
    Yes, we had an increase, but at first people still believed that while murder was legal, it was still wrong. Over time people adapted their behavior to the new law.

    Looking only at this segment of legalized murders, reports show that the "right to choose" is exercised around 20-25% of the time. I think if you looked at this trend over time, you'd see that in spite of this being legal, it still took society a generations before we considered this to be an "ordinary practice".
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  20. Ccureton's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    74 Global Posts
    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Here is how it works...

    Banks and lending companies were given the OK (deregulated) to accept "no money down" and "stated income" loans to people they knew could not pay them back. They then took these junk loans and sold them to bigger banks. They have a $500,000.00 loan they know they will not get paid back in full, so they sell that to a bigger bank for $400,000.00. Small lending companies made a killing and cut and ran. Now the big banks are stuck with billions of dollars out in loans that, come to find out, they can not get paid back on.
    ......
    While your premise of the root cause of the recession is true. IE banks gave out loans to people that couldnt afford them then passed the loan away to bigger banks ect ect is valid, you are completely wrong about the reason it happened. The government didn't open the door to allow banks to screw people the government forced it upon banks to "help" people.

    The community investment act was signed by Carter and revamped by Clinton in 1992. It forced banks to give loans more equally to people across economic lines. Basically it forced banks to give more to poor people. This was done under penalty of a bank loosing its FDIC protection if it failed to act. The banks then capitulated by giving out these high risk loans using ARMs and Higher rates so that they would recieve a higher rate of return on these loans since they would have a higher rate of default. They would also limit the risk by selling the loans up the scale to bigger banks till they all ended up in a few big banks. Add in some high gas prices and increasing unemployment, and a few forclosures cause a tightening of banks cause decrease spending cause more unemployment cause more foreclosures and the snowball is started.
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions