shovel ready

[hwt 0]

http://youtu.be/OvnAE8olUxU

I wonder how many million Americans lost a large percentage of their retirement, home equity and their job due to the kindness of the Democrats.

What do i mean you say ?

The Democrats wanted " everyone to own their own home ".so they forced the banks to loan to people who did not meet the requirements.

They failed to think about the ramifications of their actions . by forcing the banks to lower their requirements the Democrats did not think about supply and demand .

They loaded the market with buyers .( people who could not afford it ).
This generated a demand for homes thus prices going up and up until pop! ( lets blame bush ).

Look at these stupid assholes in the video laughing about it...

[hwt 0]

The silence is is understandable... have nothing to say?...wait i know lets blame bush !

This is a perfect example of why the government needs to keep it's nose out of the private sector.
The government should have never been allowed to run home mortgages or health care . the government did not stop this because government controlled it to began with.
do you honestly expect Republican or Democrats ( both wanting nothing more than power and control ) to run anything ? wake up!

In case even one of you tries to argue that it was bushes fault or the Republicans fault, read this ...

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/01/24/8234040/index.htm

[turbineterry 0]

Quote

http://youtu.be/OvnAE8olUxU

I wonder how many million Americans lost a large percentage of their retirement, home equity and their job due to the kindness of the Democrats.

What do i mean you say ?

The Democrats wanted " everyone to own their own home ".so they forced the banks to loan to people who did not meet the requirements.

They failed to think about the ramifications of their actions . by forcing the banks to lower their requirements the Democrats did not think about supply and demand .

They loaded the market with buyers .( people who could not afford it ).
This generated a demand for homes thus prices going up and up until pop! ( lets blame bush ).

Look at these stupid assholes in the video laughing about it...

Oh , so the banksters were forced to lend out the money?

Is that your belief?

Would it suprise you to learn that Banks are willing accomplices to loan making and money creation?
Would it suprise you to learn that banks primary income is through the creation of loans ?


Really?
You didn't know that???

No please Masser, don't throw me inta dat briar patch!!!

Please Masser, don't force me to make dat loan!!!!

You may want to do some investigative journalism work yourself instead of listening to what you hear and believe on the TV set.

Peace , Enlightenment and Understanding,
TT

[hwt 0]

A lot of it had to do with the Community Reinvestment Act. Banks were prohibited from "redlining" and were encouraged to lend to poor and minorities.

The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e.

The CRA requires that each insured depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions.

In addition to the strategic plan option, community groups [like ACORN] can be involved in the CRA evaluation process. Federal agencies publish in advance a list of banks that will be evaluated each quarter. Once every three months, NCRC notifies its members about the banks scheduled for upcoming CRA exams. NCRC encourages its members and other neighborhood organizations to offer their comments on the CRA performance of banks in advance of their examinations. Timely comments can influence a bank’s CRA rating by directing examiners to particular areas of strength or weakness in a bank’s lending, investments, or services in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. A community group’s comment can have an influence on the overall CRA rating for an institution or the CRA rating for a state or one of the tests on the CRA exam. Even changing a rating from Outstanding to Satisfactory in one state or one part of the exam can motivate a bank to increase the number of loans, investments, and services to low- and moderate-income communities.
Source(s):

And then there was the TV ad Fannie ran on March 31, 2004--the day before the Senate Banking Committee was scheduled to work on its bill. The ad featured a worried looking Hispanic couple.

Man: "Uh-oh."

Woman: "What?"

Man: "It looks like Congress is talking about new regulations for Fannie Mae."

Woman: "Will that keep us from getting that lower mortgage rate?"

Man: "Some economists say rates may go up."

Woman: "But that could mean we won't be able to afford the new house.

Man: "I know."

Even longtime Fannie watchers were stunned. "Here is an organization that was created by the Congress ... spending money questioning the Congress's right to take a serious look at oversight ..." sputtered Senator Hagel during the hearing that day. "I find it astounding. Astounding!"

By late spring 2004 it was clear that Fannie had fought the White House ( Bush ) to a draw--there would be no bill, and hence no new regulator. But it's all too clear now that Fannie Mae had won a Pyrrhic victory. Raines would have been far better served by compromising when he had the chance. Thanks to the accounting scandal, the GSEs now face regulations that are likely to be far tougher than those in the bill Fannie helped kill. One former Fannie lobbyist describes it as "the greatest political malpractice ever committed." Says another person close to the events: "What is amazing to me is Raines's will and misjudgment to continue fighting in the face of the first truly organized resistance the company had ever faced. To this day I don't know if he fought because he thought he was right, or because he knew the company's actions were so wrong."............... yes they were forced and at the same time Barney Frank told us how sound Fannie / Freddie were .this bill was filibustered by the Democrats.

Once again , the kindness of the Democrats( who failed to foresee the ramifications of their actions) got us into this mess ... you cannot dispute it .

P.S. The greed of people (bankers ) should have been foreseen as well...
the government has agencies to protect us from this ever happening in the first place ( they also failed )

[sfzombie 3]

while on the surface i can somewhat agree with some of the points you make here, on the whole it just proves what i've been saying for a while now, that the government is ran by big business, not us citizens(as it should be according to the constitution). at least that's what it sounds to me like.

http://kitswv.com

[marks2065 0]

Quote

A lot of it had to do with the Community Reinvestment Act. Banks were prohibited from "redlining" and were encouraged to lend to poor and minorities.

The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e.

The CRA requires that each insured depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions.

In addition to the strategic plan option, community groups [like ACORN] can be involved in the CRA evaluation process. Federal agencies publish in advance a list of banks that will be evaluated each quarter. Once every three months, NCRC notifies its members about the banks scheduled for upcoming CRA exams. NCRC encourages its members and other neighborhood organizations to offer their comments on the CRA performance of banks in advance of their examinations. Timely comments can influence a bank’s CRA rating by directing examiners to particular areas of strength or weakness in a bank’s lending, investments, or services in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. A community group’s comment can have an influence on the overall CRA rating for an institution or the CRA rating for a state or one of the tests on the CRA exam. Even changing a rating from Outstanding to Satisfactory in one state or one part of the exam can motivate a bank to increase the number of loans, investments, and services to low- and moderate-income communities.
Source(s):

And then there was the TV ad Fannie ran on March 31, 2004--the day before the Senate Banking Committee was scheduled to work on its bill. The ad featured a worried looking Hispanic couple.

Man: "Uh-oh."

Woman: "What?"

Man: "It looks like Congress is talking about new regulations for Fannie Mae."

Woman: "Will that keep us from getting that lower mortgage rate?"

Man: "Some economists say rates may go up."

Woman: "But that could mean we won't be able to afford the new house.

Man: "I know."

Even longtime Fannie watchers were stunned. "Here is an organization that was created by the Congress ... spending money questioning the Congress's right to take a serious look at oversight ..." sputtered Senator Hagel during the hearing that day. "I find it astounding. Astounding!"

By late spring 2004 it was clear that Fannie had fought the White House ( Bush ) to a draw--there would be no bill, and hence no new regulator. But it's all too clear now that Fannie Mae had won a Pyrrhic victory. Raines would have been far better served by compromising when he had the chance. Thanks to the accounting scandal, the GSEs now face regulations that are likely to be far tougher than those in the bill Fannie helped kill. One former Fannie lobbyist describes it as "the greatest political malpractice ever committed." Says another person close to the events: "What is amazing to me is Raines's will and misjudgment to continue fighting in the face of the first truly organized resistance the company had ever faced. To this day I don't know if he fought because he thought he was right, or because he knew the company's actions were so wrong."............... yes they were forced and at the same time Barney Frank told us how sound Fannie / Freddie were .this bill was filibustered by the Democrats.

Once again , the kindness of the Democrats( who failed to foresee the ramifications of their actions) got us into this mess ... you cannot dispute it .

P.S. The greed of people (bankers ) should have been foreseen as well...
the government has agencies to protect us from this ever happening in the first place ( they also failed )

this is a perfect example of how blind the liberals can be. when someone cannot manage money (low credit score) you don't give them more money(or a house). Instead you take the credit card away until they show they can manage money and then you monitor them to confirm they can handle the responsibility. The fed's credit card should be taken away also, and the debt limit should not be raised.