kallend 2,026 #101 October 8, 2008 Quote Ha you can use %'s to your advantage if you choose but my point is what you keep ignoring. CRA and programs like it started this whole mess!! If the LTV's and DTI's would not have been raised then this would have NEVER HAPPENED! It is no longer my industry by the way and I am proud of who and how I helped when I was in it! No bank was forced into leveraging crap. CRA loans performed no worse than conventional loans according to your own data. It is YOUR industry that cause the world-wide crisis. PS 15% is still greater than 9% any way you look at it. Maybe if the bankers had realized this, they wouldn't have fucked us over so badly.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #102 October 8, 2008 Wow..... you really know how to blame others for problems that were created by the consumer as well. I never did any subprime loans and worked with HUD to try and restrict them but you know who kept them going? The government..... I know this because HUD is a FEDERAL AGENCY and I saw stuff all the time the demonstrated the agenda of the government. Of course no one forced the banks to leverage the crap and they should pay for it not get bailed out and I am telling you they are at fault but guess who else is....... the government and its programs as well as the consumer! ALL are to blame but it sure is easy to blame the "greedy" businesses right? Please..... the greedy government wanted it to especially OBAMA... how much money did he get fed from Fannie Mae again? They also did it because the only thing keeping the economy together was the housing boom.... everything else sucked and it pulled us back up after the dot com bubble burst. Point your fingers all you want but it seems you just want an easy scapegoat and do not want to face reality.Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #103 October 8, 2008 According to you, CRA loans default no more often than conventional loans, much less often than subprime loans, and contributed a far smaller $$$ amount to the total than conventional loans and subprime loans, yet you continue to draw the illogical conclusion that the CRA precipitated the crisis. One can only assume that you are not an unbiased observer. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #104 October 8, 2008 Wrong... you refuse to see that the program and others like it created the problem by introducing a lot of flex on lending. By the way if there are more conventional and subprime loans out there would it not stand to reason that the default rate would be higher... again you can manipulate %'s any way you want to but you have nothing to say to rebute what I am saying. It was the programs pushed by the government that caused all of this. Primarily the dems but continued by Bush then the banks and lenders followed suit to make money and the consumers simply thought it was great and bought above their means. What does not make sense about this????Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #105 October 8, 2008 makes perfect sense to some of us. Apparently some folks need government control and overview to reign themselves in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #106 October 9, 2008 > It was the programs pushed by the government that caused all of this. You'll have to show me the law that required homebuyers, under penalty of law, to get risky mortgages. The immediate cause of this crisis were homebuyers who got foolish loans and then could not pay them back. A less immediate, but still very proximate, cause were the bankers who took those bad loans, put a bow around them and turned them into opaque investment vehicles (like mortgage backed securities and, later, default credit swaps to protect those securities) that were made available to unsuspecting investors. Another cause were those very investors who bought into securities they did not understand. Setting the stage for all this were people like Phil Gramm who made sure those investment vehicles were opaque and people like Franklin Raines who manipulated the system for their profit. Go back far enough and you could even blame FDR, who created the FNMA (and thus provided some incentive to give out risky loans.) But these people did not CAUSE the problem. They simply allowed people to be very, very stupid about their loans and investments. No one wants to hear that it's their fault. Everyone wants to blame the government, the democrats, the republicans, the fat cats, the banks, or whoever. But the cause is a lot closer. If you got a subprime mortgage, this is your fault. If your 401k contains mortgage-backed securities that you don't understand, this is your fault. Own up to it. It's fun to blame someone else, but the cause is much closer than most people think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #107 October 9, 2008 Bill that is basically what I said and I do agree.... I stated that I don't understand why the borrowers have no blame. At the same time if you dangle something sweet in front of the amrican people they go for it every time. Very sad but very true and the government and businesses know this. That is why they have blame as well but I totally agree with you! I was just giving information form being on the inside what I saw happening. Blues!! RobLife is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #108 October 9, 2008 > I was just giving information form being on the inside what I saw happening. OK, sorry, I read your reply wrong. >At the same time if you dangle something sweet in front of the amrican people >they go for it every time. Yep. And while it's their fault for going after it, we should endeavor to not dangle things that are both sweet and poisonous in front of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #109 October 9, 2008 QuoteWrong... you refuse to see that the program and others like it created the problem by introducing a lot of flex on lending. By the way if there are more conventional and subprime loans out there would it not stand to reason that the default rate would be higher... again you can manipulate %'s any way you want to but you have nothing to say to rebute what I am saying. It was the programs pushed by the government that caused all of this. Primarily the dems but continued by Bush then the banks and lenders followed suit to make money and the consumers simply thought it was great and bought above their means. What does not make sense about this???? I'm not manipulating %, they are what they are and I believe the numbers you reported. The CRA didn't force any bank to change its lending requirements on other loans. They did that vountarily because they thought they could make more money. The CRA didn't force any bank to package up its loans and sell them to Countrywide, UBS, etc. Banks did that to increase throughput and make more money. CRA didn't apply to the brokers who have the worst records for foreclosed loans. The CRA didn't force any ratings agency to give securitized loan packages AAA ratings. The CRA didn't force any investors to buy securitized loan products. The investors did that because it looked like a money fountain. The CRA didn't mandate CDSs. All those things were done quite voluntarily. The industry survived for decades with a forclosure rate just the same as CRA loans. The crisis didn't occur because CRA loans failed at a high rate - they didn't, as ytour own data show. Traiger and Hinckley concluded: 1. CRA banks were less likely to make risky home purchase loans than other lending institutions. 2. The high cost APR loans originating from CRA banks were appreciably lower than other banks 3. CRA banks were twice as likely to retain originated loans in their portfolios rather than packaging them up and selling them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #110 October 9, 2008 I give up.... I'm done with all of this. Traiger & Hinckley by the way????? They are freakin attorneys paid to find for one side. Really???Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #111 October 9, 2008 Welcome to SC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #112 October 9, 2008 QuoteI give up.... I'm done with all of this. Traiger & Hinckley by the way????? They are freakin attorneys paid to find for one side. Really??? Nice ad hominem there. Are you disputing their data? Or your own, for that matter? YOU told us that CRA loans default at a LOWER rate than sub-primes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #113 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteFunny....I don't see anything in the GOP platform about forcing victims of rape to continue the pregnancy to term. What the platform says is this: Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. I think you just made my point for me - thank you. And I notice you avoided comment on Palin's very clear statement in her campaign interview. Why don't you go ahead and show us where it says mentions rape/incest in the quoted text, Professor. I refer you again to your own comment about the difference between bills and amendments. Your hypocrisy is showing (again). Obama's PROVEN record on gun control is LESS important to you than a personal opinion from a candidate on the other side of the aisle. You may return to running around the barnyard with your 'Palin forces rape victims to bear babies' shrill, Chicken Little.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #114 October 9, 2008 Palin has made her individual philosophy on this pretty clear. It is what it is. Party platforms don't appoint SCOTUS justices; Presidents do. And VPs can become Predidents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #115 October 9, 2008 QuotePalin has made her individual philosophy on this pretty clear. It is what it is. Party platforms don't appoint SCOTUS justices; Presidents do. And VPs can become Predidents. As Obama has made HIS position clear and WILL be in a position to appoint SC justices if he becomes President. Palin MAY become President. Your SCOTUS example speaks more strongly for my argument than his.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #116 October 9, 2008 Given that SCOTUS appointments are for life, what are the odds that the next POTUS will actually appoint one? Anybody currently sitting have retirement plans? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #117 October 9, 2008 Quote You may return to running around the barnyard with your 'Palin forces rape victims to bear babies' shrill, Chicken Little. I think you need to read the new sticky at the top of the forum.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #118 October 9, 2008 QuoteGiven that SCOTUS appointments are for life, what are the odds that the next POTUS will actually appoint one? Anybody currently sitting have retirement plans? One is over 80 and 4 others are over 70... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #119 October 9, 2008 None of those have stated a desire to retire anytime soon either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #120 October 9, 2008 QuoteNone of those have stated a desire to retire anytime soon either. How many have done that in the past?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #121 October 9, 2008 I'll give you that it is entirely possible. Improbable that 2 would do it within the same time period I believe. I personally don't think the SCOTUS is prepared to make any abortion law changes any time soon. Although given O'Conner retirment and Scalia's opinions on abortion....and the 2 newest conservative appointments....who knows? anyway....this thread is about the 2nd, not abortion rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #122 October 9, 2008 Still waiting John. The topic of this thread is Obama and the 2nd. He has made statement after statement that he wants to remove rights granted under the second. Such as these that you never responded to in another thread: From his own website: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Fact check -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms? A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right/b], in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line: 35. Do you support state legislation to: a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. b. ban assault weapons? Yes. c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions? A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO ONE has an issue with illegal guns...But why the problem with legal assault weapons? Even the DOJ said that before the first AWB that only 1-4% of crimes were using weapons that were outlawed by the AWB. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry"--Obama -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. * Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms. * Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms. Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns. But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions. The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.” But the Joyce Foundation in 1999 awarded $84,000 to the Chicago-Kent College of Law for a symposium on the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to bear arms, but rather only a state’s right to arm its militia. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Post quotes Obama out of context, claiming that he only wanted to tax “certain types” of guns in 1999. But the full sentence in the 1999 article reads, “Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” Chinta Strausberg, Obama unveils federal gun bill, Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999, at 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 13, 2003, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee for a bill that would have enacted a much broader gun ban. (The vote tally sheet is available at http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf). The bill under debate that day, SB 1195 (available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/...300SB1195lv.pdf), would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver, or possess” a “semiautomatic assault weapon.” The bill defined a “semiautomatic assault weapon” to include “any firearm having a caliber of 50 [sic] or greater.” See SB 1195, page 2, line 10 (emphasis added). Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be a “semiautomatic assault weapon.” Shotguns 28-gauge or larger (by far the majority of shotguns owned in the United States) are all “.50-caliber or greater.” See National Rifle Ass’n, Firearms Fact Book 183 (3d ed. 1989). SB 1195 did exclude any firearm that “is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action” and “any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.” SB 1195 p.3, lines 12-23. However, the bill did not exclude firearms with hinge or similar actions, such as single-shot or double-barreled shotguns used by millions of hunters. Anyone who possessed one of these firearms in Illinois 90 days after the effective date would have had to “destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.” SB 1195, p. 5, line 33. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. SB 1195, p. 5, line 15. This “seizure and surrender” provision was much more severe than the former federal “assault weapons” ban, which had a “grandfather clause” to allow current lawful owners to keep their guns. See 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2) (repealed). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He has voted several times to ban weapons. He has made several statements that he wants to ban weapons. He voted to take certain types of weapons from the populace, or make them criminals."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #123 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteFunny....I don't see anything in the GOP platform about forcing victims of rape to continue the pregnancy to term. What the platform says is this: Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. I think you just made my point for me - thank you. And I notice you avoided comment on Palin's very clear statement in her campaign interview. Why don't you go ahead and show us where it says mentions rape/incest in the quoted text, Professor. I refer you again to your own comment about the difference between bills and amendments. . Who do you think you're kidding? The exclusion of rape and incest from the document is exactly the problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #124 October 9, 2008 Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated very clearly that restrictions on certain types of weapons and certain individuals are Constitutional. Show me where Obama has proposed a Constitutional amendment to override the 2nd, and you'll have a point.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #125 October 9, 2008 Your last warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
