100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Capatilism versus socialism | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
firstly,, how is this '"The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36] correlate to this 'Here is your proof. Clinton made it easier for people with no money to get credit and not only that but he also made it easier for banks to operate secretly' where is the legislation clinton passed single handedly giving people with NO MONEY credit? the issue here, is that there is alot of information which can be interpreted to mean different things and there are far too many ABSOLUTE opinions expressed which fail to be proven as absolute at all... The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [2] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995, were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Massive new provisions to CRA that forced banks to issue $1 trillion dollars in bad loans and indirectly fund the work of radical left-wing organizations."[3] Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. [4 "Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA, issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled 'The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved.' 'Timely comments,' the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, 'can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating.'" "'To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application,' advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, 'lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations.' By intervening, even just threatening to intervene, in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do." HAHAHA! MOAR PROOF! of nothing but someones ASSESSMENT of a policy ,,,and an author linking events back to ONE PERSON, just by stating its so instead of PROVING its so.... All I hear is blah blah blah I am ignorant of the truth and I refuse to educate myself because..... A.) I have a duty to my race to always side with black people (we call this the black vote) B.) I would actually have to admit I am wrong.(probably the real reason) If I am wrong, I want you to tell me why this is not factual, and I want to know why YOU think that the recession happened. Go ahead , and don't post a link I want to know what YOU think happened and why. I am neither ignorant or refusing to educate myself, I just dont see this thread or any random choice of websites(out of the millions posted) as EDUCATIONAL material, most find those sites that back up what they already believe, most people seek out affirmation for their beliefs(psych 101) what I do see is people sharing opinions and posting other random facts and opinions which SEEM to back theirs up my responses are not about a duty to race, my responses are about being truthful and relevant I am not an economist, but if I had to take a laymans guess at what prompted this past recession it would be the wars in iraq and afghanistan, tax cuts, the collapse of the financial industry, the housing market, and the disproportionate rise in the cost of living compared to a stagnate living wage,,, Ok so when you are talking about the housing market and the financial industry, and the rise in the cost of living you are talking about things that I already showed you. I showed you how those problems came to be. The problem is that you have not given a REASON as to why the problems came to be. SOMETHING happened and CAUSED this problem. So since you disagree what's the reason? What caused it? in order two wars - 9/11 and the government's (under Bush leadership) choice of reaction tax cuts - more government policy (under Bush leadership) financial and housing collapse - corporate greed, or more specifically, taking advantage of policies intended to assist more people by purposely misleading people instead(believing they would be legally able to force more money from them through interest rates,,,) cost of living rise compared to living wage stalemate - this is harder to pinpoint to any one event or time period,, basically as outsourcing and automation have increased, jobs have been lost and employers have been able to employ for a lower wage while continuing to increase profits,,, LOL ok , I cant keep repeating myself. Here you go ....AGAIN! Over the last 30 years, environmentalists have become the most powerful lobby in history. This has happened for two reasons: They have many, many ultra-rich backers in the urban and suburban socialist elite. And they get free, favorable media coverage for any crisis they wish to declare. This media coverage is worth tens of billions of dollars in free advertising every year. Ecologists have used their power to restrict the harvesting of natural resources for decades now, pushing up the price for consumers, because reduced supply causes an increase in price through the law of supply and demand. Oil and timber are particular commodities that enviros have been restricting. Conservative response: Use our natural resources wisely for the common good. Do not deny access so that an elite minority of backpackers and birdwatchers can feel satisfied, while average "working" citizens, along with "the poor", pay more for housing and gasoline. The power to tax is the power to destroy, goes the old saying. Indeed it is. Throughout history, heavily taxed economies have suffered, while lightening tax loads has in every single case produced more wealth, and more evenly distributed wealth. Average Americans, including "working families", are being made poorer by relentless taxation. The money that he/she already has in his/her pocket is disappearing. This is a travesty. And ruthless taxation of private business is preventing those businesses from paying their workers better wages, or accumulating capital to modernize their plants and ultimately employ more workers. Meanwhile media liberals insistently call for higher taxes, which equal wage cuts (impoverishment) for "workers". Conservative response: Lower taxes and reduce government spending. It's really simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Wed 10/06/10 09:24 AM
|
|
Here is your proof. Clinton made it easier for people with no money to get credit and not only that but he also made it easier for banks to operate secretly. He reduced how often we viewed to banks info and he redistributed the wealth to minority's and women. BOOM! They're is your proof! 
Regulatory changes 1995 In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[55] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36] By early 1995, the proposed CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process to date, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results.[56] The CRA examination process itself was reformed to incorporate the pending changes.[40] Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings was made available via web page for public review as well.[36] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also moved to revise its regulation structure allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.[57] During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act.[58] Niskanen's, and other respondents to the proposed changes, voiced their concerns during the public comment & testimony periods in late 1993 through early 1995. In response to the aggregate concerns recorded by then, the Federal financial supervisory agencies (the OCC, FRB, FDIC, and OTS) made further clarifications relating to definition, assessment, ratings and scope; sufficiently resolving many of the issues raised in the process. The agencies jointly reported their final amended regulations for implementing the Community Reinvestment Act in the Federal Register on May 4, 1995. The final amended regulations replaced the existing CRA regulations in their entirety.[59] (See the notes in the "1995" column of Table I. for the specifics) Legislative changes 1999 In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced in 1998 by Senator Phil Gramm but it was unable to complete the legislative process into law. Resistance to enacting the 1998 bill, as well as the subsequent 1999 bill, centered around the legislation's language which would expand the types of banking institutions of the time into other areas of service but would not be subject to CRA compliance in order to do so. The Senator also demanded full disclosure of any financial "deals" which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion".[60] In the fall of 1999, Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer prevented another impasse by securing a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton Administration by agreeing to amend the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" (12 U.S.C. ch.16) to allow banks to merge or expand into other types of financial institutions. The new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's FDIC related provisions, along with the addition of sub-section § 2903(c) directly to Title 12, insured any bank holding institution wishing to be re-designated as a financial holding institution by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System would also have to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect.[61] At the same time the G-L-B Act's changes to the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" would now allow for bank expansions into new lines of business, non-affiliated groups entering into agreements with these bank or financial institutions would also have to be reported as outlined under the newly added section to Title 12, § 1831y. (CRA Sunshine Requirements), satisfying Sen. Gramm's concerns.[62][63] In conjunction with the above "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" changes, smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance by the addition of §2908. (Small Bank Regulatory Relief) directly to Chapter 30, (the existing CRA laws), itself. The 1999 Act also mandated two studies to be conducted in connection with the "Community Reinvestment Act":[64] * the first report by the Federal Reserve, to be delivered to Congress by March 15, 2000, is a comprehensive study of CRA to focus on default and delinquency rates, and the profitability of loans made in connection with CRA;[65] * the second report to be conducted by the Treasury Department over the next two years, is intended to determine the impact of the Act on the provision of services to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and people, as intended by CRA.[66] On signing the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act", President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[67] You have posted a long portion of an article without demonstrating how it supports your opinion. For example, what is it about the passage or amendments of the 'Sunshine' Act or 'Community Reinvestment Act' or 'Gramm-Leech-Bliley Act', or 'Federal Deposit Insurance Act' that lead you to your opinions. You have to be more specific. I mean if you're trying to blame 'something' on 'someone' we need to be able to make the connections between what you think is the problem and who or what is responsible for the problem. Clearly, a president does not have the power to write law, but only sign legislation into law and on rare occasions to veto it. That legislative process is not supposed to be primarily lead by the 'individual opinions' of those sitting in the House or Senate. In fact the process gives ample opportunity for all political views to be expressed before a bill is brought up for a vote. I don't particularly agree with some of the fomalities involved, nor the unethical mistreatment of the rules that some would invoke. For example, the filibuster was never meant to be used as a 'common' tool to prevent consideration of, or ongoing, discussion/debate over perceived issues bill. But that is how Republicans have used it. STOP THE MACHINERY, until we are in control. That's not acting in the best interest of our country, that's blackmailing an entire voting population. But I don't think that goes to the heart of the issue(s) you want to point out - you simply have not made those issues clear. So try again. Obviously, you have an opinion but copying and pasting what other people have written only demonstrates that you have adopted someone elses opinion. To make it your own, you need to show the relevency of how the facts presented in the writing support your OWN opinion. What I'm pointing out is that it makes for a more constructive debate when the person presenting the opinion is acturally present to defend the reasoning behind the opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
firstly,, how is this '"The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36] correlate to this 'Here is your proof. Clinton made it easier for people with no money to get credit and not only that but he also made it easier for banks to operate secretly' where is the legislation clinton passed single handedly giving people with NO MONEY credit? the issue here, is that there is alot of information which can be interpreted to mean different things and there are far too many ABSOLUTE opinions expressed which fail to be proven as absolute at all... The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [2] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995, were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Massive new provisions to CRA that forced banks to issue $1 trillion dollars in bad loans and indirectly fund the work of radical left-wing organizations."[3] Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. [4 "Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA, issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled 'The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved.' 'Timely comments,' the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, 'can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating.'" "'To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application,' advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, 'lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations.' By intervening, even just threatening to intervene, in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do." HAHAHA! MOAR PROOF! of nothing but someones ASSESSMENT of a policy ,,,and an author linking events back to ONE PERSON, just by stating its so instead of PROVING its so.... All I hear is blah blah blah I am ignorant of the truth and I refuse to educate myself because..... A.) I have a duty to my race to always side with black people (we call this the black vote) B.) I would actually have to admit I am wrong.(probably the real reason) If I am wrong, I want you to tell me why this is not factual, and I want to know why YOU think that the recession happened. Go ahead , and don't post a link I want to know what YOU think happened and why. I am neither ignorant or refusing to educate myself, I just dont see this thread or any random choice of websites(out of the millions posted) as EDUCATIONAL material, most find those sites that back up what they already believe, most people seek out affirmation for their beliefs(psych 101) what I do see is people sharing opinions and posting other random facts and opinions which SEEM to back theirs up my responses are not about a duty to race, my responses are about being truthful and relevant I am not an economist, but if I had to take a laymans guess at what prompted this past recession it would be the wars in iraq and afghanistan, tax cuts, the collapse of the financial industry, the housing market, and the disproportionate rise in the cost of living compared to a stagnate living wage,,, Ok so when you are talking about the housing market and the financial industry, and the rise in the cost of living you are talking about things that I already showed you. I showed you how those problems came to be. The problem is that you have not given a REASON as to why the problems came to be. SOMETHING happened and CAUSED this problem. So since you disagree what's the reason? What caused it? in order two wars - 9/11 and the government's (under Bush leadership) choice of reaction tax cuts - more government policy (under Bush leadership) financial and housing collapse - corporate greed, or more specifically, taking advantage of policies intended to assist more people by purposely misleading people instead(believing they would be legally able to force more money from them through interest rates,,,) cost of living rise compared to living wage stalemate - this is harder to pinpoint to any one event or time period,, basically as outsourcing and automation have increased, jobs have been lost and employers have been able to employ for a lower wage while continuing to increase profits,,, LOL ok , I cant keep repeating myself. Here you go ....AGAIN! Over the last 30 years, environmentalists have become the most powerful lobby in history. This has happened for two reasons: They have many, many ultra-rich backers in the urban and suburban socialist elite. And they get free, favorable media coverage for any crisis they wish to declare. This media coverage is worth tens of billions of dollars in free advertising every year. Ecologists have used their power to restrict the harvesting of natural resources for decades now, pushing up the price for consumers, because reduced supply causes an increase in price through the law of supply and demand. Oil and timber are particular commodities that enviros have been restricting. Conservative response: Use our natural resources wisely for the common good. Do not deny access so that an elite minority of backpackers and birdwatchers can feel satisfied, while average "working" citizens, along with "the poor", pay more for housing and gasoline. The power to tax is the power to destroy, goes the old saying. Indeed it is. Throughout history, heavily taxed economies have suffered, while lightening tax loads has in every single case produced more wealth, and more evenly distributed wealth. Average Americans, including "working families", are being made poorer by relentless taxation. The money that he/she already has in his/her pocket is disappearing. This is a travesty. And ruthless taxation of private business is preventing those businesses from paying their workers better wages, or accumulating capital to modernize their plants and ultimately employ more workers. Meanwhile media liberals insistently call for higher taxes, which equal wage cuts (impoverishment) for "workers". Conservative response: Lower taxes and reduce government spending. It's really simple. was this a response to my post or more random correlations ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.
Ambrose Bierce neither is better or worse than the next, they are both humans,,,,the labels serve mostly to divide and distract |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is your proof. Clinton made it easier for people with no money to get credit and not only that but he also made it easier for banks to operate secretly. He reduced how often we viewed to banks info and he redistributed the wealth to minority's and women. BOOM! They're is your proof!
Regulatory changes 1995 In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[55] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36] By early 1995, the proposed CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process to date, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results.[56] The CRA examination process itself was reformed to incorporate the pending changes.[40] Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings was made available via web page for public review as well.[36] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also moved to revise its regulation structure allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.[57] During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act.[58] Niskanen's, and other respondents to the proposed changes, voiced their concerns during the public comment & testimony periods in late 1993 through early 1995. In response to the aggregate concerns recorded by then, the Federal financial supervisory agencies (the OCC, FRB, FDIC, and OTS) made further clarifications relating to definition, assessment, ratings and scope; sufficiently resolving many of the issues raised in the process. The agencies jointly reported their final amended regulations for implementing the Community Reinvestment Act in the Federal Register on May 4, 1995. The final amended regulations replaced the existing CRA regulations in their entirety.[59] (See the notes in the "1995" column of Table I. for the specifics) Legislative changes 1999 In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced in 1998 by Senator Phil Gramm but it was unable to complete the legislative process into law. Resistance to enacting the 1998 bill, as well as the subsequent 1999 bill, centered around the legislation's language which would expand the types of banking institutions of the time into other areas of service but would not be subject to CRA compliance in order to do so. The Senator also demanded full disclosure of any financial "deals" which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion".[60] In the fall of 1999, Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer prevented another impasse by securing a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton Administration by agreeing to amend the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" (12 U.S.C. ch.16) to allow banks to merge or expand into other types of financial institutions. The new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's FDIC related provisions, along with the addition of sub-section § 2903(c) directly to Title 12, insured any bank holding institution wishing to be re-designated as a financial holding institution by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System would also have to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect.[61] At the same time the G-L-B Act's changes to the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" would now allow for bank expansions into new lines of business, non-affiliated groups entering into agreements with these bank or financial institutions would also have to be reported as outlined under the newly added section to Title 12, § 1831y. (CRA Sunshine Requirements), satisfying Sen. Gramm's concerns.[62][63] In conjunction with the above "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" changes, smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance by the addition of §2908. (Small Bank Regulatory Relief) directly to Chapter 30, (the existing CRA laws), itself. The 1999 Act also mandated two studies to be conducted in connection with the "Community Reinvestment Act":[64] * the first report by the Federal Reserve, to be delivered to Congress by March 15, 2000, is a comprehensive study of CRA to focus on default and delinquency rates, and the profitability of loans made in connection with CRA;[65] * the second report to be conducted by the Treasury Department over the next two years, is intended to determine the impact of the Act on the provision of services to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and people, as intended by CRA.[66] On signing the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act", President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[67] You have posted a long portion of an article without demonstrating how it supports your opinion. For example, what is it about the passage or amendments of the 'Sunshine' Act or 'Community Reinvestment Act' or 'Gramm-Leech-Bliley Act', or 'Federal Deposit Insurance Act' that lead you to your opinions. You have to be more specific. I mean if you're trying to blame 'something' on 'someone' we need to be able to make the connections between what you think is the problem and who or what is responsible for the problem. Clearly, a president does not have the power to write law, but only sign legislation into law and on rare occasions to veto it. That legislative process is not supposed to be primarily lead by the 'individual opinions' of those sitting in the House or Senate. In fact the process gives ample opportunity for all political views to be expressed before a bill is brought up for a vote. I don't particularly agree with some of the fomalities involved, nor the unethical mistreatment of the rules that some would invoke. For example, the filibuster was never meant to be used as a 'common' tool to prevent consideration of, or ongoing, discussion/debate over perceived issues bill. But that is how Republicans have used it. STOP THE MACHINERY, until we are in control. That's not acting in the best interest of our country, that's blackmailing an entire voting population. But I don't think that goes to the heart of the issue(s) you want to point out - you simply have not made those issues clear. So try again. Obviously, you have an opinion but copying and pasting what other people have written only demonstrates that you have adopted someone elses opinion. To make it your own, you need to show the relevency of how the facts presented in the writing support your OWN opinion. What I'm pointing out is that it makes for a more constructive debate when the person presenting the opinion is acturally present to defend the reasoning behind the opinion. LOL so because I copy paste it can't be my opinion? No, I work SMARTER not harder. I look for the information THAT I ALREADY KNOW IS TRUE. And I copy and paste it instead of re writing it so you feel better. You see I posses this uncanny ability to look at information and then research it and recognize the truth. You have a great vocabulary and are capable of coming off intelligent but your post is empty of meaning or substance. You ask questions to which the answers are already available. If you knew what the Community reinvestment act was you would know why I brought it up. But you don't. You just can't stand the fact that I am right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is your proof. Clinton made it easier for people with no money to get credit and not only that but he also made it easier for banks to operate secretly. He reduced how often we viewed to banks info and he redistributed the wealth to minority's and women. BOOM! They're is your proof!
Regulatory changes 1995 In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[55] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36] By early 1995, the proposed CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process to date, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results.[56] The CRA examination process itself was reformed to incorporate the pending changes.[40] Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings was made available via web page for public review as well.[36] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also moved to revise its regulation structure allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.[57] During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act.[58] Niskanen's, and other respondents to the proposed changes, voiced their concerns during the public comment & testimony periods in late 1993 through early 1995. In response to the aggregate concerns recorded by then, the Federal financial supervisory agencies (the OCC, FRB, FDIC, and OTS) made further clarifications relating to definition, assessment, ratings and scope; sufficiently resolving many of the issues raised in the process. The agencies jointly reported their final amended regulations for implementing the Community Reinvestment Act in the Federal Register on May 4, 1995. The final amended regulations replaced the existing CRA regulations in their entirety.[59] (See the notes in the "1995" column of Table I. for the specifics) Legislative changes 1999 In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced in 1998 by Senator Phil Gramm but it was unable to complete the legislative process into law. Resistance to enacting the 1998 bill, as well as the subsequent 1999 bill, centered around the legislation's language which would expand the types of banking institutions of the time into other areas of service but would not be subject to CRA compliance in order to do so. The Senator also demanded full disclosure of any financial "deals" which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion".[60] In the fall of 1999, Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer prevented another impasse by securing a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton Administration by agreeing to amend the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" (12 U.S.C. ch.16) to allow banks to merge or expand into other types of financial institutions. The new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's FDIC related provisions, along with the addition of sub-section § 2903(c) directly to Title 12, insured any bank holding institution wishing to be re-designated as a financial holding institution by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System would also have to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect.[61] At the same time the G-L-B Act's changes to the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" would now allow for bank expansions into new lines of business, non-affiliated groups entering into agreements with these bank or financial institutions would also have to be reported as outlined under the newly added section to Title 12, § 1831y. (CRA Sunshine Requirements), satisfying Sen. Gramm's concerns.[62][63] In conjunction with the above "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" changes, smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance by the addition of §2908. (Small Bank Regulatory Relief) directly to Chapter 30, (the existing CRA laws), itself. The 1999 Act also mandated two studies to be conducted in connection with the "Community Reinvestment Act":[64] * the first report by the Federal Reserve, to be delivered to Congress by March 15, 2000, is a comprehensive study of CRA to focus on default and delinquency rates, and the profitability of loans made in connection with CRA;[65] * the second report to be conducted by the Treasury Department over the next two years, is intended to determine the impact of the Act on the provision of services to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and people, as intended by CRA.[66] On signing the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act", President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[67] You have posted a long portion of an article without demonstrating how it supports your opinion. For example, what is it about the passage or amendments of the 'Sunshine' Act or 'Community Reinvestment Act' or 'Gramm-Leech-Bliley Act', or 'Federal Deposit Insurance Act' that lead you to your opinions. You have to be more specific. I mean if you're trying to blame 'something' on 'someone' we need to be able to make the connections between what you think is the problem and who or what is responsible for the problem. Clearly, a president does not have the power to write law, but only sign legislation into law and on rare occasions to veto it. That legislative process is not supposed to be primarily lead by the 'individual opinions' of those sitting in the House or Senate. In fact the process gives ample opportunity for all political views to be expressed before a bill is brought up for a vote. I don't particularly agree with some of the fomalities involved, nor the unethical mistreatment of the rules that some would invoke. For example, the filibuster was never meant to be used as a 'common' tool to prevent consideration of, or ongoing, discussion/debate over perceived issues bill. But that is how Republicans have used it. STOP THE MACHINERY, until we are in control. That's not acting in the best interest of our country, that's blackmailing an entire voting population. But I don't think that goes to the heart of the issue(s) you want to point out - you simply have not made those issues clear. So try again. Obviously, you have an opinion but copying and pasting what other people have written only demonstrates that you have adopted someone elses opinion. To make it your own, you need to show the relevency of how the facts presented in the writing support your OWN opinion. What I'm pointing out is that it makes for a more constructive debate when the person presenting the opinion is acturally present to defend the reasoning behind the opinion. LOL so because I copy paste it can't be my opinion? No, I work SMARTER not harder. I look for the information THAT I ALREADY KNOW IS TRUE. And I copy and paste it instead of re writing it so you feel better. You see I posses this uncanny ability to look at information and then research it and recognize the truth. You have a great vocabulary and are capable of coming off intelligent but your post is empty of meaning or substance. You ask questions to which the answers are already available. If you knew what the Community reinvestment act was you would know why I brought it up. But you don't. You just can't stand the fact that I am right. I see a recurring theme here my opinions and posts are educated and relevant, and yours arent Im right right right and all those who disagree know it and hate it interesting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LMAO!!! Is that what you think? Then explain Austin and Dallas and Houston . You don't know anything about Texas do you? We are VERY conservative and THAT'S WHY WE ARE THRIVING! We give tax breaks to businesses and make it easy for them to businesses! We don't allow liberal CRAP to interfere with our ability to make money!!!!!!
You disagree PROVE IT. Show me a list like I showed you! Show me the liberal cities above the conservative cities and also make sure they have not declined either! One the most valid explanations was already presented. The Texas economy, the world’s 11th-largest, continues to fare better than those of many other states.
The 2nd largest economy (not just in the U.S. but in the world) is the non-profit sector. Texas and the nonprofit sector are totally at opposite ends in many ways but not without similarities. For example Texas is a very conservative state, even to the point of wanting to control the information in school text books to limit the information presented to students to that of conservative, white, Christian ideals of privilege. While the nonprofit sector faces the reality of the human condition. Also, Texas is so conservative that its government hordes the stimulus funds even while some of its ‘plans’ for rebuilding the economy remain unattended, while organizations in the nonprofit sector distribute their resources, rarely having adequate funds to maintain the organization beyond a few months. There is one thing both Texas and the nonprofit sector have in common; both have access to huge and vast resources. Another thing Texas and the nonprofit sector have in common is they are both valuable to our society as economies. So, while the nonprofit sector is socially conscious and often struggles with management issues, the conservative views of the government in Texas restricts its social consciousness to the point of maintaining a belief that their power comes from their conservative nature rather than the vast amount of resources endemic of the land within its boundaries. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
firstly,, how is this '"The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36] correlate to this 'Here is your proof. Clinton made it easier for people with no money to get credit and not only that but he also made it easier for banks to operate secretly' where is the legislation clinton passed single handedly giving people with NO MONEY credit? the issue here, is that there is alot of information which can be interpreted to mean different things and there are far too many ABSOLUTE opinions expressed which fail to be proven as absolute at all... The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [2] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995, were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Massive new provisions to CRA that forced banks to issue $1 trillion dollars in bad loans and indirectly fund the work of radical left-wing organizations."[3] Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. [4 "Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA, issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled 'The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved.' 'Timely comments,' the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, 'can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating.'" "'To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application,' advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, 'lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations.' By intervening, even just threatening to intervene, in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do." HAHAHA! MOAR PROOF! of nothing but someones ASSESSMENT of a policy ,,,and an author linking events back to ONE PERSON, just by stating its so instead of PROVING its so.... All I hear is blah blah blah I am ignorant of the truth and I refuse to educate myself because..... A.) I have a duty to my race to always side with black people (we call this the black vote) B.) I would actually have to admit I am wrong.(probably the real reason) If I am wrong, I want you to tell me why this is not factual, and I want to know why YOU think that the recession happened. Go ahead , and don't post a link I want to know what YOU think happened and why. I am neither ignorant or refusing to educate myself, I just dont see this thread or any random choice of websites(out of the millions posted) as EDUCATIONAL material, most find those sites that back up what they already believe, most people seek out affirmation for their beliefs(psych 101) what I do see is people sharing opinions and posting other random facts and opinions which SEEM to back theirs up my responses are not about a duty to race, my responses are about being truthful and relevant I am not an economist, but if I had to take a laymans guess at what prompted this past recession it would be the wars in iraq and afghanistan, tax cuts, the collapse of the financial industry, the housing market, and the disproportionate rise in the cost of living compared to a stagnate living wage,,, Ok so when you are talking about the housing market and the financial industry, and the rise in the cost of living you are talking about things that I already showed you. I showed you how those problems came to be. The problem is that you have not given a REASON as to why the problems came to be. SOMETHING happened and CAUSED this problem. So since you disagree what's the reason? What caused it? There are many reasons and causes of poverty. Its clear, to those who recognize it, that the greatest contributor to poverty is oppression. Oppression comes from many directions and through many sources, but they seem to have common threads. There is a group, usually some sort of majority, in power and through that power a sense of privilege is derived. Social constructs are built around and for the benefit of the group in power. Eventually the group in power no longer recognizes thier own privilege, which only exists through the oppression of others. Examples: gender - as women have had to battle the oppression of their male counterparts. race - becasue genetic physical characteristics can set people up as a minorty and thus give rise to the priviledge of the majority to oppress them. There are, of course others but gender and, as another poster has indicated, "institutional racism" are the two greatest sources of oppression and thus of "White Male Privelege" within the United States. Institutional Racism - exists within the structures and practices of of our institutions, which begin with our greatest authorities, our governments. It is a fact that this is ongoing and it is a fact that it is extensive within our justice system. It is also a fact that the group who instutiionalizes racism rarely recognize the oppressive nature of their actions, because they are "privileged", meaning they are rarely ever subjects of their own oppressive actions. Therefore, if anyone 'pulls the race card' they may have a very legitimate reason for doing so and it would be wise to ask the person making the claim how they percieve racism in that particular case. But that's just useful information in case someone DOES 'pull the race card'. So tell me, since it's your opinion that Black people tend to live in congregated areas of poverty and maintain that space with an iron grip - can you explain why you think that has occurred? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
firstly,, how is this '"The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36] correlate to this 'Here is your proof. Clinton made it easier for people with no money to get credit and not only that but he also made it easier for banks to operate secretly' where is the legislation clinton passed single handedly giving people with NO MONEY credit? the issue here, is that there is alot of information which can be interpreted to mean different things and there are far too many ABSOLUTE opinions expressed which fail to be proven as absolute at all... The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [2] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995, were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Massive new provisions to CRA that forced banks to issue $1 trillion dollars in bad loans and indirectly fund the work of radical left-wing organizations."[3] Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. [4 "Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA, issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled 'The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved.' 'Timely comments,' the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, 'can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating.'" "'To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application,' advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, 'lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations.' By intervening, even just threatening to intervene, in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do." HAHAHA! MOAR PROOF! of nothing but someones ASSESSMENT of a policy ,,,and an author linking events back to ONE PERSON, just by stating its so instead of PROVING its so.... All I hear is blah blah blah I am ignorant of the truth and I refuse to educate myself because..... A.) I have a duty to my race to always side with black people (we call this the black vote) B.) I would actually have to admit I am wrong.(probably the real reason) If I am wrong, I want you to tell me why this is not factual, and I want to know why YOU think that the recession happened. Go ahead , and don't post a link I want to know what YOU think happened and why. I am neither ignorant or refusing to educate myself, I just dont see this thread or any random choice of websites(out of the millions posted) as EDUCATIONAL material, most find those sites that back up what they already believe, most people seek out affirmation for their beliefs(psych 101) what I do see is people sharing opinions and posting other random facts and opinions which SEEM to back theirs up my responses are not about a duty to race, my responses are about being truthful and relevant I am not an economist, but if I had to take a laymans guess at what prompted this past recession it would be the wars in iraq and afghanistan, tax cuts, the collapse of the financial industry, the housing market, and the disproportionate rise in the cost of living compared to a stagnate living wage,,, Ok so when you are talking about the housing market and the financial industry, and the rise in the cost of living you are talking about things that I already showed you. I showed you how those problems came to be. The problem is that you have not given a REASON as to why the problems came to be. SOMETHING happened and CAUSED this problem. So since you disagree what's the reason? What caused it? There are many reasons and causes of poverty. Its clear, to those who recognize it, that the greatest contributor to poverty is oppression. Oppression comes from many directions and through many sources, but they seem to have common threads. There is a group, usually some sort of majority, in power and through that power a sense of privilege is derived. Social constructs are built around and for the benefit of the group in power. Eventually the group in power no longer recognizes thier own privilege, which only exists through the oppression of others. Examples: gender - as women have had to battle the oppression of their male counterparts. race - becasue genetic physical characteristics can set people up as a minorty and thus give rise to the priviledge of the majority to oppress them. There are, of course others but gender and, as another poster has indicated, "institutional racism" are the two greatest sources of oppression and thus of "White Male Privelege" within the United States. Institutional Racism - exists within the structures and practices of of our institutions, which begin with our greatest authorities, our governments. It is a fact that this is ongoing and it is a fact that it is extensive within our justice system. It is also a fact that the group who instutiionalizes racism rarely recognize the oppressive nature of their actions, because they are "privileged", meaning they are rarely ever subjects of their own oppressive actions. Therefore, if anyone 'pulls the race card' they may have a very legitimate reason for doing so and it would be wise to ask the person making the claim how they percieve racism in that particular case. But that's just useful information in case someone DOES 'pull the race card'. So tell me, since it's your opinion that Black people tend to live in congregated areas of poverty and maintain that space with an iron grip - can you explain why you think that has occurred? after reading that I had to check the calendar to make sure it wasn't 1950.. excuses...excuses... and more excuses... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the op was an ASSESSMENT of certain events in history, anyone can tie events together and give their opinion of them,,, for example, I will do so now.. the idea of free market is a false premise that has never existed here in america anymore than true socialism has or will dont believe me,,need facts? pick an industry that has operated in the free market and done well for themself banking, credit cards, oil, insurance, drugs they all make the most profit SCREWING over the common man for another buck when people are only valued by a dollar sign, its not going to work for too long,,,not that anything will when you have a large number of human beings involved here is an article with some isolated FACTS surrounded in opinion, I just dont wish to post a whole book http://tabacco.blog-city.com/why_capitalism_does_not_work_4u_pits_big_biz_against_middle.htm Actually no, you obviously didn't dead the post. Typical. If you had read the post you would know EXACTLY what point you would need to debate. If you are too lazy to read the ENTIRE post I am not going to help you by telling you what you are missing. READ, EDUCATE YOURSELF! oh, I read it (especially nice are the little references to 'race') and I still have enough reading comprehension to recognize facts from opinions,,, LOL OOOH THE RACE CARD WHAT A SURPRISE!!! A black woman is the first one to pull the race card!! LMAO!!! Let me let you in on a little secret. I grew up in the ghetto in girls homes with nothing but black women. BLACK PEOPLE ARE THE MOST RACIST PEOPLE ON THE ****ING PLANET. As you just PROVED , you guys are the first one's to pull the ****ing race card. Get over yourself I have no patience for that pathetic argument. That **** makes me so angry I could spit! You people get EVERYTHING HANDED TO YOU! You were NOT a slave so you will get NO pity from me! Especial when YOU get more help to make it in this country than I DO!!!!! really? really?!! did you read your own OP....lol lol I will quote the section I referred to( a reference not a 'card') ''First: Consider the black inner cities of America – New York, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc. -- that include tens of millions of citizens. Who controls these areas with an iron grip? The Democrat party does, that’s who. Why is the unemployment rate, dependence on food stamps and other government handouts, the poverty rate and the murder rate always much higher in these areas than elsewhere in the nation? '' race card,,,haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa so it comes out,, the 'you people' defense lol, ,please continue condescending,, I and 'my people' progress in SPITE of racism not because racism is gone,,, Hmmm so because he stated statistical FACTS, you are calling him a racist? LMAO!! So am I a racist if I say that black people have commit more crimes and fill up more of our prisons and jails? Would that be racist of the truth? You seem to get the two confused. See you don't disagree it just ticks you off that it's true . So you pull the RACE CARD to try to ***** and moan and cry because you don't like the truth. Yea you and "your people" are the reason racism exsist. It's because you are always whining about the "white man keeping you down" Yet the WHITE MAN gives your people so much that he COMPLETELY BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY!! And all you can do is complain and ***** and moan. Well **** that ****! Get the **** out of this country then, if it's so bad for you and "your people" Go back to Africa where YOUR OWN BLACK ANCESTORS SOLD YOUR OWN PEOPLE TO THE WHITE PEOPLE!! If you want someone to blame go ***** at the Africans who enslaved your people int the first place!!!!! who did I call racist exactly? not sure who you are referring to,,,, If you say black people 'have commit more crimes and fill up more of our prisons and jails ' I would most likely consider you misinformed instead of racist UNLESS you were making the statement in a context to imply some inherent criminality amongst black people,,, the truth is just fine with me, but opinions are a dime a dozen and truthful FACTS are a different issue which rarely come up in these threads,, and my 'family' have been in the US of A for several generations,probably more than plenty of 'your' people so I will 'go back' to Africa, as soon as they go back to wherever the Mayflower brought them from, better yet, lets not go into the whole my people and your people smokescreen,, lets stick to the debating and stop making it personal,,,, for now, I am an american with just as much right to an opinion as anyone else even if it means I dont blindly agree with whatever Im told or allow others to bully me with opinions that they deem to be 'truly' worthy of my residence here Blacks do commit more crimes. LOL I won't waste my time with facts because you stare facts in the face and say they just ain't so. Most black people even know that's true. LOL So do a lot of non-black people. Even I know what DWB means, my friends have experienced it, in MY neighborhood and you can bet I submitted a complaint to my town officials. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the op was an ASSESSMENT of certain events in history, anyone can tie events together and give their opinion of them,,, for example, I will do so now.. the idea of free market is a false premise that has never existed here in america anymore than true socialism has or will dont believe me,,need facts? pick an industry that has operated in the free market and done well for themself banking, credit cards, oil, insurance, drugs they all make the most profit SCREWING over the common man for another buck when people are only valued by a dollar sign, its not going to work for too long,,,not that anything will when you have a large number of human beings involved here is an article with some isolated FACTS surrounded in opinion, I just dont wish to post a whole book http://tabacco.blog-city.com/why_capitalism_does_not_work_4u_pits_big_biz_against_middle.htm Actually no, you obviously didn't dead the post. Typical. If you had read the post you would know EXACTLY what point you would need to debate. If you are too lazy to read the ENTIRE post I am not going to help you by telling you what you are missing. READ, EDUCATE YOURSELF! oh, I read it (especially nice are the little references to 'race') and I still have enough reading comprehension to recognize facts from opinions,,, LOL OOOH THE RACE CARD WHAT A SURPRISE!!! A black woman is the first one to pull the race card!! LMAO!!! Let me let you in on a little secret. I grew up in the ghetto in girls homes with nothing but black women. BLACK PEOPLE ARE THE MOST RACIST PEOPLE ON THE ****ING PLANET. As you just PROVED , you guys are the first one's to pull the ****ing race card. Get over yourself I have no patience for that pathetic argument. That **** makes me so angry I could spit! You people get EVERYTHING HANDED TO YOU! You were NOT a slave so you will get NO pity from me! Especial when YOU get more help to make it in this country than I DO!!!!! really? really?!! did you read your own OP....lol lol I will quote the section I referred to( a reference not a 'card') ''First: Consider the black inner cities of America – New York, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc. -- that include tens of millions of citizens. Who controls these areas with an iron grip? The Democrat party does, that’s who. Why is the unemployment rate, dependence on food stamps and other government handouts, the poverty rate and the murder rate always much higher in these areas than elsewhere in the nation? '' race card,,,haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa so it comes out,, the 'you people' defense lol, ,please continue condescending,, I and 'my people' progress in SPITE of racism not because racism is gone,,, Hmmm so because he stated statistical FACTS, you are calling him a racist? LMAO!! So am I a racist if I say that black people have commit more crimes and fill up more of our prisons and jails? Would that be racist of the truth? You seem to get the two confused. See you don't disagree it just ticks you off that it's true . So you pull the RACE CARD to try to ***** and moan and cry because you don't like the truth. Yea you and "your people" are the reason racism exsist. It's because you are always whining about the "white man keeping you down" Yet the WHITE MAN gives your people so much that he COMPLETELY BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY!! And all you can do is complain and ***** and moan. Well **** that ****! Get the **** out of this country then, if it's so bad for you and "your people" Go back to Africa where YOUR OWN BLACK ANCESTORS SOLD YOUR OWN PEOPLE TO THE WHITE PEOPLE!! If you want someone to blame go ***** at the Africans who enslaved your people int the first place!!!!! who did I call racist exactly? not sure who you are referring to,,,, If you say black people 'have commit more crimes and fill up more of our prisons and jails ' I would most likely consider you misinformed instead of racist UNLESS you were making the statement in a context to imply some inherent criminality amongst black people,,, the truth is just fine with me, but opinions are a dime a dozen and truthful FACTS are a different issue which rarely come up in these threads,, and my 'family' have been in the US of A for several generations,probably more than plenty of 'your' people so I will 'go back' to Africa, as soon as they go back to wherever the Mayflower brought them from, better yet, lets not go into the whole my people and your people smokescreen,, lets stick to the debating and stop making it personal,,,, for now, I am an american with just as much right to an opinion as anyone else even if it means I dont blindly agree with whatever Im told or allow others to bully me with opinions that they deem to be 'truly' worthy of my residence here Blacks do commit more crimes. LOL I won't waste my time with facts because you stare facts in the face and say they just ain't so. Most black people even know that's true. LOL uhhuh, quite literally, black people are CONVICTED of more 'violent' crimes, relatively speaking this is different than actually COMMITTING more crimes ( I wouldnt be able to say what 'race' holds that honor) http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp I didn't read the link, I don't have to. But does it also show how black people are sententanced, by the courts, by maximum penalties and that more black people recieve the death sentance for crimes against whites, that whites who commit the same crime against a black person? Those are facts too, and don't require a lot of research to prove. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
firstly,, how is this '"The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36] correlate to this 'Here is your proof. Clinton made it easier for people with no money to get credit and not only that but he also made it easier for banks to operate secretly' where is the legislation clinton passed single handedly giving people with NO MONEY credit? the issue here, is that there is alot of information which can be interpreted to mean different things and there are far too many ABSOLUTE opinions expressed which fail to be proven as absolute at all... The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [2] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995, were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Massive new provisions to CRA that forced banks to issue $1 trillion dollars in bad loans and indirectly fund the work of radical left-wing organizations."[3] Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. [4 "Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA, issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled 'The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved.' 'Timely comments,' the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, 'can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating.'" "'To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application,' advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, 'lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations.' By intervening, even just threatening to intervene, in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do." HAHAHA! MOAR PROOF! of nothing but someones ASSESSMENT of a policy ,,,and an author linking events back to ONE PERSON, just by stating its so instead of PROVING its so.... All I hear is blah blah blah I am ignorant of the truth and I refuse to educate myself because..... A.) I have a duty to my race to always side with black people (we call this the black vote) B.) I would actually have to admit I am wrong.(probably the real reason) If I am wrong, I want you to tell me why this is not factual, and I want to know why YOU think that the recession happened. Go ahead , and don't post a link I want to know what YOU think happened and why. I am neither ignorant or refusing to educate myself, I just dont see this thread or any random choice of websites(out of the millions posted) as EDUCATIONAL material, most find those sites that back up what they already believe, most people seek out affirmation for their beliefs(psych 101) what I do see is people sharing opinions and posting other random facts and opinions which SEEM to back theirs up my responses are not about a duty to race, my responses are about being truthful and relevant I am not an economist, but if I had to take a laymans guess at what prompted this past recession it would be the wars in iraq and afghanistan, tax cuts, the collapse of the financial industry, the housing market, and the disproportionate rise in the cost of living compared to a stagnate living wage,,, Ok so when you are talking about the housing market and the financial industry, and the rise in the cost of living you are talking about things that I already showed you. I showed you how those problems came to be. The problem is that you have not given a REASON as to why the problems came to be. SOMETHING happened and CAUSED this problem. So since you disagree what's the reason? What caused it? There are many reasons and causes of poverty. Its clear, to those who recognize it, that the greatest contributor to poverty is oppression. Oppression comes from many directions and through many sources, but they seem to have common threads. There is a group, usually some sort of majority, in power and through that power a sense of privilege is derived. Social constructs are built around and for the benefit of the group in power. Eventually the group in power no longer recognizes thier own privilege, which only exists through the oppression of others. Examples: gender - as women have had to battle the oppression of their male counterparts. race - becasue genetic physical characteristics can set people up as a minorty and thus give rise to the priviledge of the majority to oppress them. There are, of course others but gender and, as another poster has indicated, "institutional racism" are the two greatest sources of oppression and thus of "White Male Privelege" within the United States. Institutional Racism - exists within the structures and practices of of our institutions, which begin with our greatest authorities, our governments. It is a fact that this is ongoing and it is a fact that it is extensive within our justice system. It is also a fact that the group who instutiionalizes racism rarely recognize the oppressive nature of their actions, because they are "privileged", meaning they are rarely ever subjects of their own oppressive actions. Therefore, if anyone 'pulls the race card' they may have a very legitimate reason for doing so and it would be wise to ask the person making the claim how they percieve racism in that particular case. But that's just useful information in case someone DOES 'pull the race card'. So tell me, since it's your opinion that Black people tend to live in congregated areas of poverty and maintain that space with an iron grip - can you explain why you think that has occurred? Actually I said that liberal control those masses with an iron grip. Not the black community themselves. Want to see why they live like that why don't you go see for yourself? I grew up with nothing but poor black people as I was a ward of the state due to my mother giving me away. I lived with young black girls who hated me just because I was white. I got beat up constantly just because I was white. They strive to be as ignorant as possible by encouraging each other to act as "black" AKA (use Ebonics and act like a gangster)as possible. If a black person doesn't talk ghetto then they are shunned from the black community and called a white man in a black mans body. When you drive to the ghetto look at the cars and the clothes. They have money!!! They don't save to get themselves out of squaller! No they spend all they're money on rims and gold chains and clothes and shoes! If you have never lived in that community than you don't know but I have and I do! **** I have been robbed at gun point twice! I have had no help but I did it myself!! I got a good job and I moved out of there and I continue to better myself. I don't ask for a ****ing hand out or blame ANYONE for the hardships in my life! I do it myself by working my *** off! I have had a shitty life since I was born and you don't see me bitching about oppression! Why because I am a survivor and a fighter not a ****ing pathetic Vitim! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the op was an ASSESSMENT of certain events in history, anyone can tie events together and give their opinion of them,,, for example, I will do so now.. the idea of free market is a false premise that has never existed here in america anymore than true socialism has or will dont believe me,,need facts? pick an industry that has operated in the free market and done well for themself banking, credit cards, oil, insurance, drugs they all make the most profit SCREWING over the common man for another buck when people are only valued by a dollar sign, its not going to work for too long,,,not that anything will when you have a large number of human beings involved here is an article with some isolated FACTS surrounded in opinion, I just dont wish to post a whole book http://tabacco.blog-city.com/why_capitalism_does_not_work_4u_pits_big_biz_against_middle.htm Actually no, you obviously didn't dead the post. Typical. If you had read the post you would know EXACTLY what point you would need to debate. If you are too lazy to read the ENTIRE post I am not going to help you by telling you what you are missing. READ, EDUCATE YOURSELF! oh, I read it (especially nice are the little references to 'race') and I still have enough reading comprehension to recognize facts from opinions,,, LOL OOOH THE RACE CARD WHAT A SURPRISE!!! A black woman is the first one to pull the race card!! LMAO!!! Let me let you in on a little secret. I grew up in the ghetto in girls homes with nothing but black women. BLACK PEOPLE ARE THE MOST RACIST PEOPLE ON THE ****ING PLANET. As you just PROVED , you guys are the first one's to pull the ****ing race card. Get over yourself I have no patience for that pathetic argument. That **** makes me so angry I could spit! You people get EVERYTHING HANDED TO YOU! You were NOT a slave so you will get NO pity from me! Especial when YOU get more help to make it in this country than I DO!!!!! really? really?!! did you read your own OP....lol lol I will quote the section I referred to( a reference not a 'card') ''First: Consider the black inner cities of America – New York, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc. -- that include tens of millions of citizens. Who controls these areas with an iron grip? The Democrat party does, that’s who. Why is the unemployment rate, dependence on food stamps and other government handouts, the poverty rate and the murder rate always much higher in these areas than elsewhere in the nation? '' race card,,,haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa so it comes out,, the 'you people' defense lol, ,please continue condescending,, I and 'my people' progress in SPITE of racism not because racism is gone,,, Hmmm so because he stated statistical FACTS, you are calling him a racist? LMAO!! So am I a racist if I say that black people have commit more crimes and fill up more of our prisons and jails? Would that be racist of the truth? You seem to get the two confused. See you don't disagree it just ticks you off that it's true . So you pull the RACE CARD to try to ***** and moan and cry because you don't like the truth. Yea you and "your people" are the reason racism exsist. It's because you are always whining about the "white man keeping you down" Yet the WHITE MAN gives your people so much that he COMPLETELY BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY!! And all you can do is complain and ***** and moan. Well **** that ****! Get the **** out of this country then, if it's so bad for you and "your people" Go back to Africa where YOUR OWN BLACK ANCESTORS SOLD YOUR OWN PEOPLE TO THE WHITE PEOPLE!! If you want someone to blame go ***** at the Africans who enslaved your people int the first place!!!!! who did I call racist exactly? not sure who you are referring to,,,, If you say black people 'have commit more crimes and fill up more of our prisons and jails ' I would most likely consider you misinformed instead of racist UNLESS you were making the statement in a context to imply some inherent criminality amongst black people,,, the truth is just fine with me, but opinions are a dime a dozen and truthful FACTS are a different issue which rarely come up in these threads,, and my 'family' have been in the US of A for several generations,probably more than plenty of 'your' people so I will 'go back' to Africa, as soon as they go back to wherever the Mayflower brought them from, better yet, lets not go into the whole my people and your people smokescreen,, lets stick to the debating and stop making it personal,,,, for now, I am an american with just as much right to an opinion as anyone else even if it means I dont blindly agree with whatever Im told or allow others to bully me with opinions that they deem to be 'truly' worthy of my residence here Blacks do commit more crimes. LOL I won't waste my time with facts because you stare facts in the face and say they just ain't so. Most black people even know that's true. LOL uhhuh, quite literally, black people are CONVICTED of more 'violent' crimes, relatively speaking this is different than actually COMMITTING more crimes ( I wouldnt be able to say what 'race' holds that honor) http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp I didn't read the link, I don't have to. But does it also show how black people are sententanced, by the courts, by maximum penalties and that more black people recieve the death sentance for crimes against whites, that whites who commit the same crime against a black person? Those are facts too, and don't require a lot of research to prove. honestly, I know that to be true as well, but I think it is too simplistic to point out race and stop there although race is irreversibly intwined into the system thinking outside the box, in a capitalistic culture, I think the power lies wherever the GREEN lies,, where thers are funds there are resources, better opportunities, better education, better healthcare, and because of PAST racial division and racist policies/laws,, certain minorities have a legacy of economic oppression to overcome which lends to disproportionate rates of all those things that economics plays a part in like , education, employment, and the justice system |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the op was an ASSESSMENT of certain events in history, anyone can tie events together and give their opinion of them,,, for example, I will do so now.. the idea of free market is a false premise that has never existed here in america anymore than true socialism has or will dont believe me,,need facts? pick an industry that has operated in the free market and done well for themself banking, credit cards, oil, insurance, drugs they all make the most profit SCREWING over the common man for another buck when people are only valued by a dollar sign, its not going to work for too long,,,not that anything will when you have a large number of human beings involved here is an article with some isolated FACTS surrounded in opinion, I just dont wish to post a whole book http://tabacco.blog-city.com/why_capitalism_does_not_work_4u_pits_big_biz_against_middle.htm Actually no, you obviously didn't dead the post. Typical. If you had read the post you would know EXACTLY what point you would need to debate. If you are too lazy to read the ENTIRE post I am not going to help you by telling you what you are missing. READ, EDUCATE YOURSELF! oh, I read it (especially nice are the little references to 'race') and I still have enough reading comprehension to recognize facts from opinions,,, LOL OOOH THE RACE CARD WHAT A SURPRISE!!! A black woman is the first one to pull the race card!! LMAO!!! Let me let you in on a little secret. I grew up in the ghetto in girls homes with nothing but black women. BLACK PEOPLE ARE THE MOST RACIST PEOPLE ON THE ****ING PLANET. As you just PROVED , you guys are the first one's to pull the ****ing race card. Get over yourself I have no patience for that pathetic argument. That **** makes me so angry I could spit! You people get EVERYTHING HANDED TO YOU! You were NOT a slave so you will get NO pity from me! Especial when YOU get more help to make it in this country than I DO!!!!! really? really?!! did you read your own OP....lol lol I will quote the section I referred to( a reference not a 'card') ''First: Consider the black inner cities of America – New York, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc. -- that include tens of millions of citizens. Who controls these areas with an iron grip? The Democrat party does, that’s who. Why is the unemployment rate, dependence on food stamps and other government handouts, the poverty rate and the murder rate always much higher in these areas than elsewhere in the nation? '' race card,,,haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa so it comes out,, the 'you people' defense lol, ,please continue condescending,, I and 'my people' progress in SPITE of racism not because racism is gone,,, Hmmm so because he stated statistical FACTS, you are calling him a racist? LMAO!! So am I a racist if I say that black people have commit more crimes and fill up more of our prisons and jails? Would that be racist of the truth? You seem to get the two confused. See you don't disagree it just ticks you off that it's true . So you pull the RACE CARD to try to ***** and moan and cry because you don't like the truth. Yea you and "your people" are the reason racism exsist. It's because you are always whining about the "white man keeping you down" Yet the WHITE MAN gives your people so much that he COMPLETELY BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY!! And all you can do is complain and ***** and moan. Well **** that ****! Get the **** out of this country then, if it's so bad for you and "your people" Go back to Africa where YOUR OWN BLACK ANCESTORS SOLD YOUR OWN PEOPLE TO THE WHITE PEOPLE!! If you want someone to blame go ***** at the Africans who enslaved your people int the first place!!!!! who did I call racist exactly? not sure who you are referring to,,,, If you say black people 'have commit more crimes and fill up more of our prisons and jails ' I would most likely consider you misinformed instead of racist UNLESS you were making the statement in a context to imply some inherent criminality amongst black people,,, the truth is just fine with me, but opinions are a dime a dozen and truthful FACTS are a different issue which rarely come up in these threads,, and my 'family' have been in the US of A for several generations,probably more than plenty of 'your' people so I will 'go back' to Africa, as soon as they go back to wherever the Mayflower brought them from, better yet, lets not go into the whole my people and your people smokescreen,, lets stick to the debating and stop making it personal,,,, for now, I am an american with just as much right to an opinion as anyone else even if it means I dont blindly agree with whatever Im told or allow others to bully me with opinions that they deem to be 'truly' worthy of my residence here Blacks do commit more crimes. LOL I won't waste my time with facts because you stare facts in the face and say they just ain't so. Most black people even know that's true. LOL uhhuh, quite literally, black people are CONVICTED of more 'violent' crimes, relatively speaking this is different than actually COMMITTING more crimes ( I wouldnt be able to say what 'race' holds that honor) http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp I didn't read the link, I don't have to. But does it also show how black people are sententanced, by the courts, by maximum penalties and that more black people recieve the death sentance for crimes against whites, that whites who commit the same crime against a black person? Those are facts too, and don't require a lot of research to prove. Why not? If they are more likely to commit crimes and even more likely to repeat the offence why bother letting them out to hurt more people? They knew what they were getting into when they made the choice to commit the crimes in the first place. I like how you refuse to read an actual study and choose to debate me anyway. How about this, I am not going to waste my time debating with you until you do read it 
That way you are not wasting my time with blind accusations and denial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.peace.ca/truthaboutblackcrime.htm
The National Institute of Drug Abuse estimated that while 12 percent of drug users are black, they make up nearly 50 percent of all drug possession arrests in the U.S. (The Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128) According to the National Drug Strategy Network, although African Americans make up less than one-third of the population in Georgia, the black arrest rate for drugs is five times greater than the white arrest rate. In addition, since 1990, African Americans have accounted for more than 75% of persons incarcerated for drug offenses in Georgia and make up 97.7% of the people in that state who are given life sentences for drug offenses. In six California counties independently surveyed in 1995, 100% of those individuals sent to trial on drug charges were minorities, while the drug-using population in those same counties was more than 60% white. (The Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128) A CNN article in 1996 sited U.S. government figures that show more than 90 percent of all federal prosecutions for crack cocaine in 1995 were of African American defendants. In addition, unlike convictions for powered cocaine and other drugs (which wealthy, Caucasian defendants are more likely to use), a conviction for selling crack cocaine can carry a lengthy prison term without benefit of parole. ------------------------------------- It's also said, in general, that blue collar crimes, such as burglary are done by blacks and other races, and prosecuted heavily. White collar crime is mostly by whites, and not prosecuted nearly as heavily. As far as lambasting Clinton for any perceived problems, Republicans owned both sides, so you can't blame Clinton for signing what those bastions of Republican conservatism put in to effect. They wanted it and he went with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
firstly,, how is this '"The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36] correlate to this 'Here is your proof. Clinton made it easier for people with no money to get credit and not only that but he also made it easier for banks to operate secretly' where is the legislation clinton passed single handedly giving people with NO MONEY credit? the issue here, is that there is alot of information which can be interpreted to mean different things and there are far too many ABSOLUTE opinions expressed which fail to be proven as absolute at all... The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [2] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995, were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Massive new provisions to CRA that forced banks to issue $1 trillion dollars in bad loans and indirectly fund the work of radical left-wing organizations."[3] Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. [4 "Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA, issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled 'The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved.' 'Timely comments,' the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, 'can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating.'" "'To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application,' advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, 'lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations.' By intervening, even just threatening to intervene, in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do." HAHAHA! MOAR PROOF! of nothing but someones ASSESSMENT of a policy ,,,and an author linking events back to ONE PERSON, just by stating its so instead of PROVING its so.... All I hear is blah blah blah I am ignorant of the truth and I refuse to educate myself because..... A.) I have a duty to my race to always side with black people (we call this the black vote) B.) I would actually have to admit I am wrong.(probably the real reason) If I am wrong, I want you to tell me why this is not factual, and I want to know why YOU think that the recession happened. Go ahead , and don't post a link I want to know what YOU think happened and why. I am neither ignorant or refusing to educate myself, I just dont see this thread or any random choice of websites(out of the millions posted) as EDUCATIONAL material, most find those sites that back up what they already believe, most people seek out affirmation for their beliefs(psych 101) what I do see is people sharing opinions and posting other random facts and opinions which SEEM to back theirs up my responses are not about a duty to race, my responses are about being truthful and relevant I am not an economist, but if I had to take a laymans guess at what prompted this past recession it would be the wars in iraq and afghanistan, tax cuts, the collapse of the financial industry, the housing market, and the disproportionate rise in the cost of living compared to a stagnate living wage,,, Ok so when you are talking about the housing market and the financial industry, and the rise in the cost of living you are talking about things that I already showed you. I showed you how those problems came to be. The problem is that you have not given a REASON as to why the problems came to be. SOMETHING happened and CAUSED this problem. So since you disagree what's the reason? What caused it? in order two wars - 9/11 and the government's (under Bush leadership) choice of reaction tax cuts - more government policy (under Bush leadership) financial and housing collapse - corporate greed, or more specifically, taking advantage of policies intended to assist more people by purposely misleading people instead(believing they would be legally able to force more money from them through interest rates,,,) cost of living rise compared to living wage stalemate - this is harder to pinpoint to any one event or time period,, basically as outsourcing and automation have increased, jobs have been lost and employers have been able to employ for a lower wage while continuing to increase profits,,, LOL ok , I cant keep repeating myself. Here you go ....AGAIN! Over the last 30 years, environmentalists have become the most powerful lobby in history. This has happened for two reasons: They have many, many ultra-rich backers in the urban and suburban socialist elite. And they get free, favorable media coverage for any crisis they wish to declare. This media coverage is worth tens of billions of dollars in free advertising every year. Ecologists have used their power to restrict the harvesting of natural resources for decades now, pushing up the price for consumers, because reduced supply causes an increase in price through the law of supply and demand. Oil and timber are particular commodities that enviros have been restricting. Conservative response: Use our natural resources wisely for the common good. Do not deny access so that an elite minority of backpackers and birdwatchers can feel satisfied, while average "working" citizens, along with "the poor", pay more for housing and gasoline. The power to tax is the power to destroy, goes the old saying. Indeed it is. Throughout history, heavily taxed economies have suffered, while lightening tax loads has in every single case produced more wealth, and more evenly distributed wealth. Average Americans, including "working families", are being made poorer by relentless taxation. The money that he/she already has in his/her pocket is disappearing. This is a travesty. And ruthless taxation of private business is preventing those businesses from paying their workers better wages, or accumulating capital to modernize their plants and ultimately employ more workers. Meanwhile media liberals insistently call for higher taxes, which equal wage cuts (impoverishment) for "workers". Conservative response: Lower taxes and reduce government spending. It's really simple. >>> "Over the last 30 years, environmentalists have become the most powerful lobby in history."<<< I can't quite make the connection between the beginning of the postings above and the lobbying of Environmentalist. So I'll I will try to make the connections and end with a questions that can lead making a better connection. Lobbyists have varying degrees of influence which is leveraged contingent to current issues. Our knowledge base with regards to the environment has developed through the efforts of science. The scientific evidence which supports the environmental movement has arisen independently throughout the world. Obviously environmental issues are a hot topic because these issues will effect the global population. So makes sense that the influence of this international group of people would (and should) have a great deal of influence on the policies of any particular government regarding the focus of the groups issues. But what does that have to do with how this relates to your opinion. Are you suggesting that “conservatives” are not at all concerned with the environmental effects of their policies, and that’s a good thing? Exactly how is that good? According to Wiki: In the United States today, the organized environmental movement is represented by a wide range of organizations sometimes called non-governmental organizations or NGOs. These organizations exist on local, national, and international scales. Environmental NGOs vary widely in political views and in the amount they seek to influence the environmental policy of the United States and other governments.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/80917-report-five-percent-jump-in-lobbying-expenditures-last-year
The healthcare debate took up much of the oxygen in Washington last year. So not surprisingly, the pharmaceutical and health products industry spent a record amount last year — close to $266.8 million — on federal lobbying. That is the biggest lobbying expenditure ever by a single industry in one year, according to the report. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-21/goldman-sachs-doubled-lobbying-expenses-amid-financial-revamp-sec-probe.html New York-based Goldman, which paid $550 million last week to settle the SEC suit, spent $2.7 million to lobby during the first six months of 2010, more than double the $1.3 million it spent during the same period a year earlier, according to new congressional filings. Bank of America Corp. spent $2 million, up 33 percent from $1.5 million spent during the first six months of 2009. Wells Fargo & Co.’s spending rose to $2.3 million from $1.4 million in 2009. Morgan Stanley spent $1.6 million, compared with $1.4 million a year earlier, though its second-quarter lobbying expenses were lower than a year ago. The banks’ trade group, the Washington-based American Bankers Association, spent $4.2 million, up from $3.9 million. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/12/politics/main6202526.shtml Makers of pharmaceuticals and health products spent $267 million lobbying, the most ever recorded by a single industry in a year. Business associations spent the second highest total, $183 million. Among individual groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was easily the biggest spender at $145 million. Exxon Mobil Corp. was a distant second at $27 million. If you’re interested in lobby “influence” try checking out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPA) So when considering the groups of some of the most “financially influential” lobbyists, listed above, can you how their influence has affected policy, if the policy effected was due to conservative or liberal ideals and then show that effect has been counterproductive or productive, as the case may be? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
firstly,, how is this '"The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36] correlate to this 'Here is your proof. Clinton made it easier for people with no money to get credit and not only that but he also made it easier for banks to operate secretly' where is the legislation clinton passed single handedly giving people with NO MONEY credit? the issue here, is that there is alot of information which can be interpreted to mean different things and there are far too many ABSOLUTE opinions expressed which fail to be proven as absolute at all... The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [2] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995, were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Massive new provisions to CRA that forced banks to issue $1 trillion dollars in bad loans and indirectly fund the work of radical left-wing organizations."[3] Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. [4 "Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA, issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled 'The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved.' 'Timely comments,' the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, 'can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating.'" "'To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application,' advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, 'lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations.' By intervening, even just threatening to intervene, in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do." HAHAHA! MOAR PROOF! of nothing but someones ASSESSMENT of a policy ,,,and an author linking events back to ONE PERSON, just by stating its so instead of PROVING its so.... All I hear is blah blah blah I am ignorant of the truth and I refuse to educate myself because..... A.) I have a duty to my race to always side with black people (we call this the black vote) B.) I would actually have to admit I am wrong.(probably the real reason) If I am wrong, I want you to tell me why this is not factual, and I want to know why YOU think that the recession happened. Go ahead , and don't post a link I want to know what YOU think happened and why. I am neither ignorant or refusing to educate myself, I just dont see this thread or any random choice of websites(out of the millions posted) as EDUCATIONAL material, most find those sites that back up what they already believe, most people seek out affirmation for their beliefs(psych 101) what I do see is people sharing opinions and posting other random facts and opinions which SEEM to back theirs up my responses are not about a duty to race, my responses are about being truthful and relevant I am not an economist, but if I had to take a laymans guess at what prompted this past recession it would be the wars in iraq and afghanistan, tax cuts, the collapse of the financial industry, the housing market, and the disproportionate rise in the cost of living compared to a stagnate living wage,,, Ok so when you are talking about the housing market and the financial industry, and the rise in the cost of living you are talking about things that I already showed you. I showed you how those problems came to be. The problem is that you have not given a REASON as to why the problems came to be. SOMETHING happened and CAUSED this problem. So since you disagree what's the reason? What caused it? in order two wars - 9/11 and the government's (under Bush leadership) choice of reaction tax cuts - more government policy (under Bush leadership) financial and housing collapse - corporate greed, or more specifically, taking advantage of policies intended to assist more people by purposely misleading people instead(believing they would be legally able to force more money from them through interest rates,,,) cost of living rise compared to living wage stalemate - this is harder to pinpoint to any one event or time period,, basically as outsourcing and automation have increased, jobs have been lost and employers have been able to employ for a lower wage while continuing to increase profits,,, LOL ok , I cant keep repeating myself. Here you go ....AGAIN! Over the last 30 years, environmentalists have become the most powerful lobby in history. This has happened for two reasons: They have many, many ultra-rich backers in the urban and suburban socialist elite. And they get free, favorable media coverage for any crisis they wish to declare. This media coverage is worth tens of billions of dollars in free advertising every year. Ecologists have used their power to restrict the harvesting of natural resources for decades now, pushing up the price for consumers, because reduced supply causes an increase in price through the law of supply and demand. Oil and timber are particular commodities that enviros have been restricting. Conservative response: Use our natural resources wisely for the common good. Do not deny access so that an elite minority of backpackers and birdwatchers can feel satisfied, while average "working" citizens, along with "the poor", pay more for housing and gasoline. The power to tax is the power to destroy, goes the old saying. Indeed it is. Throughout history, heavily taxed economies have suffered, while lightening tax loads has in every single case produced more wealth, and more evenly distributed wealth. Average Americans, including "working families", are being made poorer by relentless taxation. The money that he/she already has in his/her pocket is disappearing. This is a travesty. And ruthless taxation of private business is preventing those businesses from paying their workers better wages, or accumulating capital to modernize their plants and ultimately employ more workers. Meanwhile media liberals insistently call for higher taxes, which equal wage cuts (impoverishment) for "workers". Conservative response: Lower taxes and reduce government spending. It's really simple. >>> "Over the last 30 years, environmentalists have become the most powerful lobby in history."<<< I can't quite make the connection between the beginning of the postings above and the lobbying of Environmentalist. So I'll I will try to make the connections and end with a questions that can lead making a better connection. Lobbyists have varying degrees of influence which is leveraged contingent to current issues. Our knowledge base with regards to the environment has developed through the efforts of science. The scientific evidence which supports the environmental movement has arisen independently throughout the world. Obviously environmental issues are a hot topic because these issues will effect the global population. So makes sense that the influence of this international group of people would (and should) have a great deal of influence on the policies of any particular government regarding the focus of the groups issues. But what does that have to do with how this relates to your opinion. Are you suggesting that “conservatives” are not at all concerned with the environmental effects of their policies, and that’s a good thing? Exactly how is that good? According to Wiki: In the United States today, the organized environmental movement is represented by a wide range of organizations sometimes called non-governmental organizations or NGOs. These organizations exist on local, national, and international scales. Environmental NGOs vary widely in political views and in the amount they seek to influence the environmental policy of the United States and other governments.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/80917-report-five-percent-jump-in-lobbying-expenditures-last-year
The healthcare debate took up much of the oxygen in Washington last year. So not surprisingly, the pharmaceutical and health products industry spent a record amount last year — close to $266.8 million — on federal lobbying. That is the biggest lobbying expenditure ever by a single industry in one year, according to the report. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-21/goldman-sachs-doubled-lobbying-expenses-amid-financial-revamp-sec-probe.html New York-based Goldman, which paid $550 million last week to settle the SEC suit, spent $2.7 million to lobby during the first six months of 2010, more than double the $1.3 million it spent during the same period a year earlier, according to new congressional filings. Bank of America Corp. spent $2 million, up 33 percent from $1.5 million spent during the first six months of 2009. Wells Fargo & Co.’s spending rose to $2.3 million from $1.4 million in 2009. Morgan Stanley spent $1.6 million, compared with $1.4 million a year earlier, though its second-quarter lobbying expenses were lower than a year ago. The banks’ trade group, the Washington-based American Bankers Association, spent $4.2 million, up from $3.9 million. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/12/politics/main6202526.shtml Makers of pharmaceuticals and health products spent $267 million lobbying, the most ever recorded by a single industry in a year. Business associations spent the second highest total, $183 million. Among individual groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was easily the biggest spender at $145 million. Exxon Mobil Corp. was a distant second at $27 million. If you’re interested in lobby “influence” try checking out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPA) So when considering the groups of some of the most “financially influential” lobbyists, listed above, can you how their influence has affected policy, if the policy effected was due to conservative or liberal ideals and then show that effect has been counterproductive or productive, as the case may be? Those questions have already been answered. Feel free to read the thread and find out how I feel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the op was an ASSESSMENT of certain events in history, anyone can tie events together and give their opinion of them,,, for example, I will do so now.. the idea of free market is a false premise that has never existed here in america anymore than true socialism has or will dont believe me,,need facts? pick an industry that has operated in the free market and done well for themself banking, credit cards, oil, insurance, drugs they all make the most profit SCREWING over the common man for another buck when people are only valued by a dollar sign, its not going to work for too long,,,not that anything will when you have a large number of human beings involved here is an article with some isolated FACTS surrounded in opinion, I just dont wish to post a whole book http://tabacco.blog-city.com/why_capitalism_does_not_work_4u_pits_big_biz_against_middle.htm Actually no, you obviously didn't dead the post. Typical. If you had read the post you would know EXACTLY what point you would need to debate. If you are too lazy to read the ENTIRE post I am not going to help you by telling you what you are missing. READ, EDUCATE YOURSELF! oh, I read it (especially nice are the little references to 'race') and I still have enough reading comprehension to recognize facts from opinions,,, LOL OOOH THE RACE CARD WHAT A SURPRISE!!! A black woman is the first one to pull the race card!! LMAO!!! Let me let you in on a little secret. I grew up in the ghetto in girls homes with nothing but black women. BLACK PEOPLE ARE THE MOST RACIST PEOPLE ON THE ****ING PLANET. As you just PROVED , you guys are the first one's to pull the ****ing race card. Get over yourself I have no patience for that pathetic argument. That **** makes me so angry I could spit! You people get EVERYTHING HANDED TO YOU! You were NOT a slave so you will get NO pity from me! Especial when YOU get more help to make it in this country than I DO!!!!! really? really?!! did you read your own OP....lol lol I will quote the section I referred to( a reference not a 'card') ''First: Consider the black inner cities of America – New York, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc. -- that include tens of millions of citizens. Who controls these areas with an iron grip? The Democrat party does, that’s who. Why is the unemployment rate, dependence on food stamps and other government handouts, the poverty rate and the murder rate always much higher in these areas than elsewhere in the nation? '' race card,,,haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa so it comes out,, the 'you people' defense lol, ,please continue condescending,, I and 'my people' progress in SPITE of racism not because racism is gone,,, Hmmm so because he stated statistical FACTS, you are calling him a racist? LMAO!! So am I a racist if I say that black people have commit more crimes and fill up more of our prisons and jails? Would that be racist of the truth? You seem to get the two confused. See you don't disagree it just ticks you off that it's true . So you pull the RACE CARD to try to ***** and moan and cry because you don't like the truth. Yea you and "your people" are the reason racism exsist. It's because you are always whining about the "white man keeping you down" Yet the WHITE MAN gives your people so much that he COMPLETELY BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY!! And all you can do is complain and ***** and moan. Well **** that ****! Get the **** out of this country then, if it's so bad for you and "your people" Go back to Africa where YOUR OWN BLACK ANCESTORS SOLD YOUR OWN PEOPLE TO THE WHITE PEOPLE!! If you want someone to blame go ***** at the Africans who enslaved your people int the first place!!!!! who did I call racist exactly? not sure who you are referring to,,,, If you say black people 'have commit more crimes and fill up more of our prisons and jails ' I would most likely consider you misinformed instead of racist UNLESS you were making the statement in a context to imply some inherent criminality amongst black people,,, the truth is just fine with me, but opinions are a dime a dozen and truthful FACTS are a different issue which rarely come up in these threads,, and my 'family' have been in the US of A for several generations,probably more than plenty of 'your' people so I will 'go back' to Africa, as soon as they go back to wherever the Mayflower brought them from, better yet, lets not go into the whole my people and your people smokescreen,, lets stick to the debating and stop making it personal,,,, for now, I am an american with just as much right to an opinion as anyone else even if it means I dont blindly agree with whatever Im told or allow others to bully me with opinions that they deem to be 'truly' worthy of my residence here Blacks do commit more crimes. LOL I won't waste my time with facts because you stare facts in the face and say they just ain't so. Most black people even know that's true. LOL uhhuh, quite literally, black people are CONVICTED of more 'violent' crimes, relatively speaking this is different than actually COMMITTING more crimes ( I wouldnt be able to say what 'race' holds that honor) http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp I didn't read the link, I don't have to. But does it also show how black people are sententanced, by the courts, by maximum penalties and that more black people recieve the death sentance for crimes against whites, that whites who commit the same crime against a black person? Those are facts too, and don't require a lot of research to prove. Why not? If they are more likely to commit crimes and even more likely to repeat the offence why bother letting them out to hurt more people? They knew what they were getting into when they made the choice to commit the crimes in the first place. I like how you refuse to read an actual study and choose to debate me anyway. How about this, I am not going to waste my time debating with you until you do read it
That way you are not wasting my time with blind accusations and denial. numbers are easily manipulated on both sides the point is,, people are individuals , and if they are american citizens should not be treated as suspect by reason of racial identity,,, the idea that blacks SHOULD be profiled because of crime statistics is a poor and inconsistent justification otherwise we should see disproportionate profiling of white drivers for drunk driving,,, disproportionate profiling of whites wishing to adopt children(since they have higher rates of child molestation) or profiling against white males in corporate america since it is disproportionately white males who are convicted of embezzlement and corporate corruption |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is your proof. Clinton made it easier for people with no money to get credit and not only that but he also made it easier for banks to operate secretly. He reduced how often we viewed to banks info and he redistributed the wealth to minority's and women. BOOM! They're is your proof!
Regulatory changes 1995 In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[55] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36] By early 1995, the proposed CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process to date, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results.[56] The CRA examination process itself was reformed to incorporate the pending changes.[40] Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings was made available via web page for public review as well.[36] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also moved to revise its regulation structure allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.[57] During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act.[58] Niskanen's, and other respondents to the proposed changes, voiced their concerns during the public comment & testimony periods in late 1993 through early 1995. In response to the aggregate concerns recorded by then, the Federal financial supervisory agencies (the OCC, FRB, FDIC, and OTS) made further clarifications relating to definition, assessment, ratings and scope; sufficiently resolving many of the issues raised in the process. The agencies jointly reported their final amended regulations for implementing the Community Reinvestment Act in the Federal Register on May 4, 1995. The final amended regulations replaced the existing CRA regulations in their entirety.[59] (See the notes in the "1995" column of Table I. for the specifics) Legislative changes 1999 In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced in 1998 by Senator Phil Gramm but it was unable to complete the legislative process into law. Resistance to enacting the 1998 bill, as well as the subsequent 1999 bill, centered around the legislation's language which would expand the types of banking institutions of the time into other areas of service but would not be subject to CRA compliance in order to do so. The Senator also demanded full disclosure of any financial "deals" which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion".[60] In the fall of 1999, Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer prevented another impasse by securing a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton Administration by agreeing to amend the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" (12 U.S.C. ch.16) to allow banks to merge or expand into other types of financial institutions. The new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's FDIC related provisions, along with the addition of sub-section § 2903(c) directly to Title 12, insured any bank holding institution wishing to be re-designated as a financial holding institution by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System would also have to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect.[61] At the same time the G-L-B Act's changes to the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" would now allow for bank expansions into new lines of business, non-affiliated groups entering into agreements with these bank or financial institutions would also have to be reported as outlined under the newly added section to Title 12, § 1831y. (CRA Sunshine Requirements), satisfying Sen. Gramm's concerns.[62][63] In conjunction with the above "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" changes, smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance by the addition of §2908. (Small Bank Regulatory Relief) directly to Chapter 30, (the existing CRA laws), itself. The 1999 Act also mandated two studies to be conducted in connection with the "Community Reinvestment Act":[64] * the first report by the Federal Reserve, to be delivered to Congress by March 15, 2000, is a comprehensive study of CRA to focus on default and delinquency rates, and the profitability of loans made in connection with CRA;[65] * the second report to be conducted by the Treasury Department over the next two years, is intended to determine the impact of the Act on the provision of services to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and people, as intended by CRA.[66] On signing the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act", President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[67] You have posted a long portion of an article without demonstrating how it supports your opinion. For example, what is it about the passage or amendments of the 'Sunshine' Act or 'Community Reinvestment Act' or 'Gramm-Leech-Bliley Act', or 'Federal Deposit Insurance Act' that lead you to your opinions. You have to be more specific. I mean if you're trying to blame 'something' on 'someone' we need to be able to make the connections between what you think is the problem and who or what is responsible for the problem. Clearly, a president does not have the power to write law, but only sign legislation into law and on rare occasions to veto it. That legislative process is not supposed to be primarily lead by the 'individual opinions' of those sitting in the House or Senate. In fact the process gives ample opportunity for all political views to be expressed before a bill is brought up for a vote. I don't particularly agree with some of the fomalities involved, nor the unethical mistreatment of the rules that some would invoke. For example, the filibuster was never meant to be used as a 'common' tool to prevent consideration of, or ongoing, discussion/debate over perceived issues bill. But that is how Republicans have used it. STOP THE MACHINERY, until we are in control. That's not acting in the best interest of our country, that's blackmailing an entire voting population. But I don't think that goes to the heart of the issue(s) you want to point out - you simply have not made those issues clear. So try again. Obviously, you have an opinion but copying and pasting what other people have written only demonstrates that you have adopted someone elses opinion. To make it your own, you need to show the relevency of how the facts presented in the writing support your OWN opinion. What I'm pointing out is that it makes for a more constructive debate when the person presenting the opinion is acturally present to defend the reasoning behind the opinion. LOL so because I copy paste it can't be my opinion? No, I work SMARTER not harder. I look for the information THAT I ALREADY KNOW IS TRUE. And I copy and paste it instead of re writing it so you feel better. You see I posses this uncanny ability to look at information and then research it and recognize the truth. You have a great vocabulary and are capable of coming off intelligent but your post is empty of meaning or substance. You ask questions to which the answers are already available. If you knew what the Community reinvestment act was you would know why I brought it up. But you don't. You just can't stand the fact that I am right. I see a recurring theme here my opinions and posts are educated and relevant, and yours arent Im right right right and all those who disagree know it and hate it interesting  Or somthing like, if you can't read the same material I read and make the same correlations that lead to my personal opinion, than how intelligent can you be????
Working smarter is what Environmentalists what us all to do - that what my opinion is after reading through all the information, so how intelligent and so many "Conservatives" be if they cannot come to the same conclusion I have???? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
firstly,, how is this '"The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36] correlate to this 'Here is your proof. Clinton made it easier for people with no money to get credit and not only that but he also made it easier for banks to operate secretly' where is the legislation clinton passed single handedly giving people with NO MONEY credit? the issue here, is that there is alot of information which can be interpreted to mean different things and there are far too many ABSOLUTE opinions expressed which fail to be proven as absolute at all... The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [2] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995, were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Massive new provisions to CRA that forced banks to issue $1 trillion dollars in bad loans and indirectly fund the work of radical left-wing organizations."[3] Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. [4 "Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA, issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled 'The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved.' 'Timely comments,' the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, 'can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating.'" "'To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application,' advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, 'lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations.' By intervening, even just threatening to intervene, in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do." HAHAHA! MOAR PROOF! of nothing but someones ASSESSMENT of a policy ,,,and an author linking events back to ONE PERSON, just by stating its so instead of PROVING its so.... All I hear is blah blah blah I am ignorant of the truth and I refuse to educate myself because..... A.) I have a duty to my race to always side with black people (we call this the black vote) B.) I would actually have to admit I am wrong.(probably the real reason) If I am wrong, I want you to tell me why this is not factual, and I want to know why YOU think that the recession happened. Go ahead , and don't post a link I want to know what YOU think happened and why. I am neither ignorant or refusing to educate myself, I just dont see this thread or any random choice of websites(out of the millions posted) as EDUCATIONAL material, most find those sites that back up what they already believe, most people seek out affirmation for their beliefs(psych 101) what I do see is people sharing opinions and posting other random facts and opinions which SEEM to back theirs up my responses are not about a duty to race, my responses are about being truthful and relevant I am not an economist, but if I had to take a laymans guess at what prompted this past recession it would be the wars in iraq and afghanistan, tax cuts, the collapse of the financial industry, the housing market, and the disproportionate rise in the cost of living compared to a stagnate living wage,,, Ok so when you are talking about the housing market and the financial industry, and the rise in the cost of living you are talking about things that I already showed you. I showed you how those problems came to be. The problem is that you have not given a REASON as to why the problems came to be. SOMETHING happened and CAUSED this problem. So since you disagree what's the reason? What caused it? There are many reasons and causes of poverty. Its clear, to those who recognize it, that the greatest contributor to poverty is oppression. Oppression comes from many directions and through many sources, but they seem to have common threads. There is a group, usually some sort of majority, in power and through that power a sense of privilege is derived. Social constructs are built around and for the benefit of the group in power. Eventually the group in power no longer recognizes thier own privilege, which only exists through the oppression of others. Examples: gender - as women have had to battle the oppression of their male counterparts. race - becasue genetic physical characteristics can set people up as a minorty and thus give rise to the priviledge of the majority to oppress them. There are, of course others but gender and, as another poster has indicated, "institutional racism" are the two greatest sources of oppression and thus of "White Male Privelege" within the United States. Institutional Racism - exists within the structures and practices of of our institutions, which begin with our greatest authorities, our governments. It is a fact that this is ongoing and it is a fact that it is extensive within our justice system. It is also a fact that the group who instutiionalizes racism rarely recognize the oppressive nature of their actions, because they are "privileged", meaning they are rarely ever subjects of their own oppressive actions. Therefore, if anyone 'pulls the race card' they may have a very legitimate reason for doing so and it would be wise to ask the person making the claim how they percieve racism in that particular case. But that's just useful information in case someone DOES 'pull the race card'. So tell me, since it's your opinion that Black people tend to live in congregated areas of poverty and maintain that space with an iron grip - can you explain why you think that has occurred? after reading that I had to check the calendar to make sure it wasn't 1950.. excuses...excuses... and more excuses... Nice photo - seems to indicate you are a white male... that tends to correlate with your responce. |
|
|
|
|
