Failure Of Civil Rights Movement To Redistribute Wealth A "traged

[kamiller42]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1688030' date='Oct 28 2008, 01:24 PM']To quote Chico Marx from [i]Duck Soup[/i] vis-a-vis whether McCain is a) a hypocrite and b) a socialist, "who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"[/quote]
Then use your eyes to read and watch some C-SPAN video.
[quote]As to why the banks did it, simple: greed. It's not hard. You can find a great overview of the background to the crisis [url="http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1"]here[/url]. (Note: some "blue" language is involved.)[/quote]
If it is simply greed, then they would not have ventured into areas where they would LOSE money.

I didn't mean to overwhelm you with facts and references that you had to resort to discount the seriousness of the problem to the level of cartoons. I have over 10 historical references documenting the democrats' complicity. I will leave you with one more because it shows what the banks were up against and who was behind it. [url="http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/"]Give it a read and watch.[/url].

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1688050' date='Oct 28 2008, 01:44 PM']If it is simply greed, then they would not have ventured into areas where they would LOSE money.[/quote]
Please. Do you think that the banks thought they were going to lose money? Everyone thought that house prices would keep going up forever - which is why buyers were so desperate to get on the property ladder in the first place - and that the party would never end. Investment banks were able to do whatever they wanted [i]because they weren't regulated[/i].

Rush Limbaugh et al have been talking about the joys of lower taxes and less regulation for years, and after eight years of actual application we've seen how well [i]that's[/i] worked out.

But again, don't believe your lying eyes.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1688063' date='Oct 28 2008, 01:55 PM']Please. Do you think that the banks thought they were going to lose money? Everyone thought that house prices would keep going up forever - which is why buyers were so desperate to get on the property ladder in the first place - and that the party would never end. Investment banks were able to do whatever they wanted [i]because they weren't regulated[/i].

Rush Limbaugh et al have been talking about the joys of lower taxes and less regulation for years, and after eight years of actual application we've seen how well [i]that's[/i] worked out.

But again, don't believe your lying eyes.[/quote]
Did banks think they would lose on risky loans? YES! In fact, banks constantly screen loans for risk and throw the really bad ones out. Banks don't want to lose money. The government and organizations like ACORN threaten the banks with bad PR and court litigation if they don't make loans they would normally throw out. I gave you one example. Here, [url="http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/wells_fargo_loan_classaction.html"]you can join a lawsuit against Wells Fargo[/url].

Note: I am NOT saying some bank execs didn't milk the situation. But you have to ask who or what put the situation into play? Government. The CRA. The 1995 CRA revisions. Congressional democrats (Even Bill Clinton agrees with this one!).

Edited October 28, 2008 by kamiller42

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1688074' date='Oct 28 2008, 02:20 PM']Did banks think they would lose on risky loans? YES! In fact, banks constantly screen loans for risk and throw the really bad ones out. Banks don't want to lose money. The government and organizations like ACORN threaten the banks with bad PR and court litigation if they don't make loans they would normally throw out. I gave you one example. Here, [url="http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/wells_fargo_loan_classaction.html"]you can join a lawsuit against Wells Fargo[/url].

Note: I am NOT saying some bank execs didn't milk the situation. But you have to ask who or what put the situation into play? Government. The CRA. The 1995 CRA revisions. Congressional democrats (Even Bill Clinton agrees with this one!).[/quote]
Again, with respect, that's nonsense. No one forced the banks to do anything. Indeed, the banks tripped over themselves to give out loans. I experienced this firsthand when buying a house four years ago. I was encouraged to take on more than I could afford and finance it using an ARM. What did the lender care? They were simply going to sell the loan anyway. Even my boring 30-year, fixed rate mortgage has been sold three or four times by now. The originating lender had no risk because they were going to flip the loan, the buying lender thought it could reduce its risk by "bundling" loans into "mortgage backed securities." I'm sorry to rain on your parade but this is about the excesses of Let The Market Decide If It Feels Good Do It capitalism, pure and simple. Indeed, it goes back to my earlier point that we should let The Market handle everything, except when The Market can't handle it, in which case "Joe the Plumber" ends up on the hook.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1688085' date='Oct 28 2008, 02:40 PM']Again, with respect, that's nonsense. No one forced the banks to do anything. Indeed, the banks tripped over themselves to give out loans. I experienced this firsthand when buying a house four years ago. I was encouraged to take on more than I could afford and finance it using an ARM. What did the lender care? They were simply going to sell the loan anyway. Even my boring 30-year, fixed rate mortgage has been sold three or four times by now. The originating lender had no risk because they were going to flip the loan, the buying lender thought it could reduce its risk by "bundling" loans into "mortgage backed securities." I'm sorry to rain on your parade but this is about the excesses of Let The Market Decide If It Feels Good Do It capitalism, pure and simple. Indeed, it goes back to my earlier point that we should let The Market handle everything, except when The Market can't handle it, in which case "Joe the Plumber" ends up on the hook.[/quote]
If you don't like securitization, look to 1995. Bill Clinton opened Pandora's box.

Your personal experience is not proof. I have a personal story which would be the opposite of what you said.

One thing to keep in mind is that when I say "risky borrower" or "risky loan," I mean anyone living beyond their means, poor or not.

Yes, banks do reject loans and applicants. One thing I do is write the software collectors use to screen loans from banks. There is risk they will not assume even if potentially profitable.

[rkwright]

Ken, why every time someone points out something about Obama, ie he is a socialist, you jump to McCain? What does Obama's being a socialist have to do with McCain?

You can make the argument that 'so is McCain' but it does nothing to the fact the Obama is a socialist.

Using your logic... I guess Bush must also be a socialist.... along with however many hundred senators and representatives are all socialists! We shouldn't fear Obama, because according to you, we're already living in a socialist country!

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1688128' date='Oct 28 2008, 03:44 PM']Ken, why every time someone points out something about Obama, ie he is a socialist, you jump to McCain? What does Obama's being a socialist have to do with McCain?

You can make the argument that 'so is McCain' but it does nothing to the fact the Obama is a socialist.

Using your logic... I guess Bush must also be a socialist.... along with however many hundred senators and representatives are all socialists! We shouldn't fear Obama, because according to you, we're already living in a socialist country![/quote]
[quote]I'm simply pointing out that it's silly to call Obama a "socialist" when McCain is just as willing to "spread the wealth." The only difference between them is who benefits.[/quote]
I get tired of the old canard regarding "class warfare" when Wall Street bankers have just been bailed out to the tune of $835BB with "Joe the Plumber" on the hook. The point is, whatever your objections about Obama, if one of them is that he's a "socialist," then you must object to McCain as well.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1688128' date='Oct 28 2008, 02:44 PM']Ken, why every time someone points out something about Obama, ie he is a socialist, you jump to McCain? What does Obama's being a socialist have to do with McCain?

You can make the argument that 'so is McCain' but it does nothing to the fact the Obama is a socialist.

Using your logic... I guess Bush must also be a socialist.... along with however many hundred senators and representatives are all socialists! We shouldn't fear Obama, because according to you, we're already living in a socialist country![/quote]

You haven't realized that he's secretly supporting Obama (NOT voting for him, yet supporting him) and would much rather see him as prez than McCain???

[rkwright]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1688139' date='Oct 28 2008, 02:54 PM']I get tired of the old canard regarding "class warfare" when Wall Street bankers have just been bailed out to the tune of $835BB with "Joe the Plumber" on the hook. The point is, whatever your objections about Obama, if one of them is that he's a "socialist," then you must object to McCain as well.[/quote]

If the bailout is your standard... our whole Federal Government is socialist. Do you believe the Federal Government is socialist??

If I read the OP correctly... it accuses Obama of being a socialist without regard to the bailout at all. As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with the bailout.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1688144' date='Oct 28 2008, 02:59 PM']You haven't realized that he's secretly supporting Obama (NOT voting for him, yet supporting him) and would much rather see him as prez than McCain???[/quote]
With respect, you're the one engaging in increasingly uncomfortable contortions trying to convince yourself that McCain is somehow a good candidate. He isn't. He stinks. On "life" issues he's wishy-washy at best. On the other main issue of the economy, he couldn't find his backside with both hands and a mirror. AND he's as much of a "socialist" as Obama.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1688152' date='Oct 28 2008, 03:07 PM']If the bailout is your standard... our whole Federal Government is socialist. Do you believe the Federal Government is socialist??

If I read the OP correctly... it accuses Obama of being a socialist without regard to the bailout at all. As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with the bailout.[/quote]
Bingo!

So the question becomes, to whose benefit is the "socialism" of the Federal government?

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1688175' date='Oct 28 2008, 03:44 PM']With respect, you're the one engaging in increasingly uncomfortable contortions trying to convince yourself that McCain is somehow a good candidate. He isn't. He stinks. On "life" issues he's wishy-washy at best. On the other main issue of the economy, he couldn't find his backside with both hands and a mirror. AND he's as much of a "socialist" as Obama.[/quote]

With all due respect, I'm not engaging in any "uncomfortable contortions." I'm fine with my vote for McCain...you obviously don't seem too comfortable with who your voting for, seeing that you dont' spend much time on here talking about whoever that is! All you ever do is attack McCain and praise Obama, praise Obama, praise Obama, praise Obama...you are probably convinced America can't find it's backside without Obama...(and a mirror...)

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1688181' date='Oct 28 2008, 04:50 PM']With all due respect, I'm not engaging in any "uncomfortable contortions." I'm fine with my vote for McCain...you obviously don't seem too comfortable with who your voting for, seeing that you dont' spend much time on here talking about whoever that is! All you ever do is attack McCain and praise Obama, praise Obama, praise Obama, praise Obama...you are probably convinced America can't find it's backside without Obama...(and a mirror...)[/quote]
Please provide a link to any post of mine in which I have praised Obama.

As for whom I'm voting for, you are correct, I'm struggling to know what's right since neither major party candidate passes the "Five Non-negotiables" test.

Edited October 28, 2008 by kenrockthefirst

[Justin86]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1688185' date='Oct 29 2008, 05:53 AM']Please provide a link to any post of mine in which I have praised Obama.

As for whom I'm voting for, you are correct, I'm struggling to know what's right since neither major party candidate passes the "Five Non-negotiables" test.[/quote]
I don't know about direct praise, but you always seem either mysteriously absent, or on the other side whenever us McCain supporters start a pro-McCain thread. You say we are "delusioned" when we praise McCain, yet you never seem to say the same thing to any of the Obama supporters around here. Hmm, why is that?

I don't know if you are actually going to pull the lever for Obama or not, but what you've made quite clear from your posts is that you would, at the very least, rather have Obama than McCain due to your strong opinions against the war in Iraq, and the economy (yeah, we conservatives have the ability to read in between the lines).

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1688128' date='Oct 28 2008, 01:44 PM']Ken, why every time someone points out something about Obama, ie he is a socialist, you jump to McCain? What does Obama's being a socialist have to do with McCain?

You can make the argument that 'so is McCain' but it does nothing to the fact the Obama is a socialist.

Using your logic... I guess Bush must also be a socialist.... along with however many hundred senators and representatives are all socialists! We shouldn't fear Obama, because according to you, we're already living in a socialist country![/quote]
Yes, this country is far more socialist than anything. You think we have real capitalism? Please. We regulate everything to death. Why? To protect the consumer and to protect our capital. Is that a bad thing? No. However, it is socialism, whether you want to admit it or not. Not all socialism is bad.

[rkwright]

C'mon... no one actually thinks the USA is a socialistic country.

Thats just ridiculous.

And I don't think all socialism is bad. I see countries like Sweeden and Denmark of done a good job with it. But to say we're a Sweeden or Denmark is too far out there.

Edited October 28, 2008 by rkwright