When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

ted

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

wrote:
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

ted


Dog? Vomit? White supremacist? Herring, is that you?

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

It was my impression that the issue was racially diverse.

Without that linchpin, you're just quacks blaming minorities for everything.
("Why is it raining today, daddy? Because of Rosa Parks ...")

Datesfat

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

It was my impression that the issue was racially diverse.

Without that linchpin, you're just quacks blaming minorities for
everything. ("Why is it raining today, daddy? Because of Rosa Parks ...")

Datesfat


You are using the classic liberal foil. Demanding "citations, and proof"
when in fact, you are challenging a stated position and need to approach it
with something more like, "I disagree with your claims because of
"___________________________________". Putting someone on the defensive and
making them do the leg-work to defend the ideas you are challenging is the
lazy man's way of co-opting an argument. Typically, when a conservative idea
is stated, and then defended with a citation, or a source, the liberal will
then move to assassinate the character or motivations of that source, and
leave the original idea behind. (Any source that contradicts liberal
horse**** is automatically labeled as "biased"). Then, we are one step off
of the original topic and eventually we get to a point that a side-issue is
agreed to by both sides, and liberal then pretends to have won an argument,
even though the original idea has not been contended with. So, since the
same information is available to us all, we are waiting here patiently for
you to go out and satisfy yourself with the available facts. If you can
contradict the article I would be very interested in that. Note that just
because some of the mortgage defaults come from white folks, that does not
mean that the article is not true.

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

Long Ranger wrote:
"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.
Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

It was my impression that the issue was racially diverse.

Without that linchpin, you're just quacks blaming minorities for
everything. ("Why is it raining today, daddy? Because of Rosa Parks ...")

Datesfat


You are using the classic liberal foil. Demanding "citations, and proof"
when in fact, you are challenging a stated position and need to approach it
with something more like, "I disagree with your claims because of
"___________________________________". Putting someone on the defensive and
making them do the leg-work to defend the ideas you are challenging is the
lazy man's way of co-opting an argument. Typically, when a conservative idea
is stated, and then defended with a citation, or a source, the liberal will
then move to assassinate the character or motivations of that source, and
leave the original idea behind. (Any source that contradicts liberal
horse**** is automatically labeled as "biased"). Then, we are one step off
of the original topic and eventually we get to a point that a side-issue is
agreed to by both sides, and liberal then pretends to have won an argument,
even though the original idea has not been contended with. So, since the
same information is available to us all, we are waiting here patiently for
you to go out and satisfy yourself with the available facts. If you can
contradict the article I would be very interested in that. Note that just
because some of the mortgage defaults come from white folks, that does not
mean that the article is not true.




It's a trick they learned as sophomores in college in the 1960's. A
sophomore, you will recall, is a wise fool.

-Raf

--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Misifus" wrote in message
...
Long Ranger wrote:
"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.
Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

It was my impression that the issue was racially diverse.

Without that linchpin, you're just quacks blaming minorities for
everything. ("Why is it raining today, daddy? Because of Rosa Parks
...")

Datesfat


You are using the classic liberal foil. Demanding "citations, and proof"
when in fact, you are challenging a stated position and need to approach
it with something more like, "I disagree with your claims because of
"___________________________________". Putting someone on the defensive
and making them do the leg-work to defend the ideas you are challenging
is the lazy man's way of co-opting an argument.

By your standard, anyone who demands more documentation about a
controversial statement is trying to co-opt an argument. That simply isn't
valid.

The Internet has made it easier than ever to provide information. You don't
have to provide the actual information: often, a URL is enough.

You made a controversial statement (that minority lending was responsible
for the financial meltdown). I asked for a citation. Rather than provide
one, you accused me of co-opting the argument.

Does anybody who authors web pages share this opinion so that you can
provide me a URL, or are you just a crackpot posting trash?

I'm guessing the latter.

Datesfat

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

By your standard, anyone who demands more documentation about a
controversial statement is trying to co-opt an argument. That simply
isn't valid.

Is that because you say so?

The Internet has made it easier than ever to provide information. You
don't have to provide the actual information: often, a URL is enough.

That the key ingredient here. It is so easy to verify things, yet you
persist in questioning people.

You made a controversial statement (that minority lending was responsible
for the financial meltdown). I asked for a citation. Rather than provide
one, you accused me of co-opting the argument.

It is not a controversial statement. Calling it that is just another attempt
at putting someone on the defensive. It is easily verified. Read up on The
Community Reinvestment Act, for instance. See what it was about, who it
targeted, and how many of those loans are in default. "It's that simple,
Larry". You never even heard of the CRA 'til now, huh?

Does anybody who authors web pages share this opinion so that you can
provide me a URL, or are you just a crackpot posting trash?

Here is another liberal ploy: Calling names and vilifying someone who calls
you on your game. If you can't refute something, at least try to demean the
opposition.

Now go out and do your own research.

I'm guessing the latter.

Datesfat

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Long Ranger" wrote in message
...
By your standard, anyone who demands more documentation about a
controversial statement is trying to co-opt an argument. That simply
isn't valid.

Is that because you say so?

The Internet has made it easier than ever to provide information. You
don't have to provide the actual information: often, a URL is enough.

That the key ingredient here. It is so easy to verify things, yet you
persist in questioning people.

You made a controversial statement (that minority lending was responsible
for the financial meltdown). I asked for a citation. Rather than
provide one, you accused me of co-opting the argument.

It is not a controversial statement. Calling it that is just another
attempt at putting someone on the defensive. It is easily verified. Read
up on The Community Reinvestment Act, for instance. See what it was about,
who it targeted, and how many of those loans are in default. "It's that
simple, Larry". You never even heard of the CRA 'til now, huh?

Does anybody who authors web pages share this opinion so that you can
provide me a URL, or are you just a crackpot posting trash?

Here is another liberal ploy: Calling names and vilifying someone who
calls you on your game. If you can't refute something, at least try to
demean the opposition.

Now go out and do your own research.

I'm aware of the CRA, but I wasn't aware that someone had traced this to the
financial meltdown. My impression from the faces on the news was that these
were mostly caucasian folks getting into a house too pricey for them.

I need to see traceability from the CRA to the financial crisis. Any URLs?

A second factor -- and no offense to any group intended -- is that inner
city properties typically ain't worth a lot. One $400K house owned by a
white person can do as much damage as eight $50K houses owned by minorities
(perhaps more damage, actually, because the price of the $400K property is
more volatile).

I found this URL (note the bookmark) interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...nc ial_crisis

However, it appears that the point you are trying to make is disputed by
most experts.

I find the discussion interesting. But painting my request for credible
information as a liberal tactic to co-opt the argument isn't helpful.

I'd hate to be the cop that pulls you over for speeding or even the judge in
traffic court. I have no doubt you could argue for at least 20 minutes.

Datefat

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

On Jun 30, 7:25*am, "Long Ranger" wrote:

You are using the classic liberal foil. Demanding "citations, and proof"
when in fact, you are challenging a stated position and need to approach it
with something more like, "I disagree with your claims because of
"___________________________________".


BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"I should be able to spout any lie I wish and you shouldn't be allowed
to question it's veracity." ("Er, unless I tell you exactly how you're
allowed to do so...")

Go back to your White Power websites and masturbate in privacy.

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

You living under a rock, so that you haven't seen that in the news for the
past year?

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Twibil" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 7:25 am, "Long Ranger" wrote:

You are using the classic liberal foil. Demanding "citations, and proof"
when in fact, you are challenging a stated position and need to approach
it
with something more like, "I disagree with your claims because of
"___________________________________".

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"I should be able to spout any lie I wish and you shouldn't be allowed
to question it's veracity." ("Er, unless I tell you exactly how you're
allowed to do so...")

Go back to your White Power websites and masturbate in privacy.

His reply essentially eats away at the principles of civilization. If you
look at FOIA laws and policies, the notion of due process, the right to
question one's accusers, etc.; it all hinges on the supposition that
"because I said so" is not a wholly satisfactory reply.

That being said, his point of view seems to be not easily provable outside
the neo-Nazi meetings at the trailer park, i.e. from Wikipedia:

BEGIN QUOTE
Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be
safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from
institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing,
law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under
President Clinton,[64][108] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that
affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky.
He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by
independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and
another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries
and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made
"perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most
widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal
oversight".[109] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky
"high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts;
most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans
that have contributed to the current crisis.[110] A 2008 study by Traiger &
Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA
compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make
subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks
were also half as likely to resell the loans.[111] Emre Ergungor of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical
difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks,
although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[112]
END QUOTE

I want to see him stopped for a traffic violation. That would have to be a
YouTube video moment. I can see him tracing his ticket to Jews and African
Americans in the police department.

Datesfat

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Wayne" wrote in message
...

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

You living under a rock, so that you haven't seen that in the news for the
past year?

You haven't provided any credible evidence that the CRA loans contributed to
the crisis.

From Wikipedia:

BEGIN QUOTE
Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be
safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from
institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing,
law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under
President Clinton,[64][108] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that
affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky.
He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by
independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and
another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries
and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made
"perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most
widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal
oversight".[109] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky
"high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts;
most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans
that have contributed to the current crisis.[110] A 2008 study by Traiger &
Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA
compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make
subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks
were also half as likely to resell the loans.[111] Emre Ergungor of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical
difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks,
although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[112]
END QUOTE

The traceability between minorities, the CRA, and the meltdown just hasn't
been made by you or any material you are willing to cite.

Remember, us on the newsgroup have higher standards of proof than your
neo-Nazi colleagues at the trailer park ...

Datesfat.

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Long Ranger" wrote
How come this predation never happened before Clinton, and Carter insisted
the loans to minorities be made?

Deregulation, similar to that which allowed the S&L scam under RR

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message
...
"Long Ranger" wrote in message
...
By your standard, anyone who demands more documentation about a
controversial statement is trying to co-opt an argument. That simply
isn't valid.

Is that because you say so?

The Internet has made it easier than ever to provide information. You
don't have to provide the actual information: often, a URL is enough.

That the key ingredient here. It is so easy to verify things, yet you
persist in questioning people.

You made a controversial statement (that minority lending was
responsible for the financial meltdown). I asked for a citation.
Rather than provide one, you accused me of co-opting the argument.

It is not a controversial statement. Calling it that is just another
attempt at putting someone on the defensive. It is easily verified. Read
up on The Community Reinvestment Act, for instance. See what it was
about, who it targeted, and how many of those loans are in default. "It's
that simple, Larry". You never even heard of the CRA 'til now, huh?

Does anybody who authors web pages share this opinion so that you can
provide me a URL, or are you just a crackpot posting trash?

Here is another liberal ploy: Calling names and vilifying someone who
calls you on your game. If you can't refute something, at least try to
demean the opposition.

Now go out and do your own research.

I'm aware of the CRA, but I wasn't aware that someone had traced this to
the financial meltdown. My impression from the faces on the news was that
these were mostly caucasian folks getting into a house too pricey for
them.

I need to see traceability from the CRA to the financial crisis. Any
URLs?

A second factor -- and no offense to any group intended -- is that inner
city properties typically ain't worth a lot. One $400K house owned by a
white person can do as much damage as eight $50K houses owned by
minorities (perhaps more damage, actually, because the price of the $400K
property is more volatile).

I found this URL (note the bookmark) interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...nc ial_crisis

However, it appears that the point you are trying to make is disputed by
most experts.

I find the discussion interesting. But painting my request for credible
information as a liberal tactic to co-opt the argument isn't helpful.

I'd hate to be the cop that pulls you over for speeding or even the judge
in traffic court. I have no doubt you could argue for at least 20
minutes.

Datefat
And win, because I don't argue unless I know what I'm talking about.

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

In
wrote:

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/ ...

This is a useful site worth forwarding.

If you're a white supremacist of some sort.

Judging by the OP's choice of newsgroups, it helps to be an
inconsiderate boor too.

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/about-npi/

White Americans have been led to believe that “diversity” and
“multiculturalism” are sacred. We’re conditioned to be shy when
it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn’t every
race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers
to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?
Isn’t it about time someone spoke for us?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Long Ranger" wrote in message
...

And win, because I don't argue unless I know what I'm talking about.

You STILL haven't provided any credible evidence that minorities were
responsible for the financial crisis. Most experts seem to believe they
were not ...

???

Datesfat

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

On 30 Jun 2009 21:53:51 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

In
wrote:

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/ ...

This is a useful site worth forwarding.

If you're a white supremacist of some sort.

Judging by the OP's choice of newsgroups, it helps to be an
inconsiderate boor too.

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/about-npi/

White Americans have been led to believe that “diversity” and
“multiculturalism” are sacred. We’re conditioned to be shy when
it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn’t every
race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers
to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?
Isn’t it about time someone spoke for us?

Judging by your name you are a Jew, one of the most tribalistic of
groups. And yet you decry the message from an organization?
Is free speech only for minorities? What about a White Cacus in the
House?

ted

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

On Jun 30, 7:12*am, wrote:
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...the-dog-return...

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

ted

Poor pathetic racist. Aren't you actually your friend Hal Turner's lap
dog?

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

On 30 Jun 2009 21:53:51 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

In
wrote:

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/ ...

This is a useful site worth forwarding.

If you're a white supremacist of some sort.

Judging by the OP's choice of newsgroups, it helps to be an
inconsiderate boor too.

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/about-npi/

White Americans have been led to believe that “diversity” and
“multiculturalism” are sacred. We’re conditioned to be shy when
it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn’t every
race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers
to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?
Isn’t it about time someone spoke for us?



Found this about a year ago:

...........................
There once was a time, not so many years ago, that mortgage lenders
would lend ONLY to those who were pre-determined to have a pretty good
chance of paying the money they were loaned back to the bank.

If you didn't have a sufficient - and VERIFIED - income - you didn't
get
the loan.
If you didn't have a sufficient - and VERIFIED - credit history, you
didn't get the loan.
If you didn't have sufficient cash to plunk down for a down payment -
you didn't get the loan.
That was the way prudent mortgage lending worked. And - for most who
qualified - it DID work.

But - starting around the Clinton era - some started saying that such
lending policies were "discriminatory", and, as it follows (regarding
certain ethnic groups), "racist". So banks were persuaded (more likely
pushed) into creating something called the "subprime" market. A
well-chosen word, for these were loans made without a real promise of
repayment.

Hence, "no-money-down" mortgages.
Hence, "interest only" mortgages (for the first several years).
Hence, "balloon" mortgages.

Once the banks made them, they quickly sold off the "paper", backed by
hoked-up schemes (derivatives) to give the impression that the risk
was
removed. But it was never removed, because the foundation upon which
these shaky loans were made was based on sand.

A few years back, I remember a big sign on I-95 in Bridgeport,
Connecticut:
Buy a house! No money down! We habla Espanol!

That told me all I needed to know about where those loans were going
to
end up: many of them, in the toilet. Not to mention those who DID have
good incomes, but bought 'way over their heads, figuring they could
"flip" the property if they couldn't pay.

Now, we have the spectre of millions of bad loans - loans that should
never have been made in the first place - coming home to roost. And
the
banks and investment firms that hold the paper are toppling over. The
most prudent thing to do here is simply let them fall, and fail. And -
go back to responsible mortgage lending to only those who have a good
chance at paying the loans BACK.

But don't blame banks for loaning money to people who were unlikely to
repay. They were FORCED into such schemes by liberals who didn't want
to
"discriminate".

That's what *responsible* lending IS - "discrimination" against those
who can't repay, plain and simple.
..............................

We didn't let them fail. No, now we have a stimulus bill and our
grandchildren will ultimately pay for the final economic meltdown
caused
by those bad loans.

Eddie

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote

Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

It was my impression that the issue was racially diverse.

Without that linchpin, you're just quacks blaming minorities for
everything. ("Why is it raining today, daddy? Because of Rosa Parks ...")

So, the changes in policy and worldview that led to the gigantic
increases in mortgage lending to minorities seen over the last decade
(with total mortgage dollars written per year increasing [6] 691% for
Hispanics and 397% for blacks from 1999 to the peak of the Housing
Bubble in 2006) unsurprisingly led to world-historical levels of mortgage
defaults in 2007-2009. After all, blacks and Hispanics were still defaulting
at very high levels when they weren't getting as much mortgage lending.
The law of diminishing marginal returns suggests that throwing more
mortgage money at them wasn't going to improve their credit worthiness.

In 2004-2007, minorities received half of subprime mortgage dollars
handed out. A [7] new 2008 Boston Fed study shows minorities in
Massachusetts getting foreclosed on subprime loans at twice the race of
whites, suggesting that minorities accounted for a sizable majority of
subprime dollars defaulted.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives..._fha_mortg.php

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"83LowRider" wrote in message
...

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote

Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

It was my impression that the issue was racially diverse.

Without that linchpin, you're just quacks blaming minorities for
everything. ("Why is it raining today, daddy? Because of Rosa Parks
...")

So, the changes in policy and worldview that led to the gigantic
increases in mortgage lending to minorities seen over the last decade
(with total mortgage dollars written per year increasing [6] 691% for
Hispanics and 397% for blacks from 1999 to the peak of the Housing
Bubble in 2006) unsurprisingly led to world-historical levels of mortgage
defaults in 2007-2009. After all, blacks and Hispanics were still
defaulting
at very high levels when they weren't getting as much mortgage lending.
The law of diminishing marginal returns suggests that throwing more
mortgage money at them wasn't going to improve their credit worthiness.

In 2004-2007, minorities received half of subprime mortgage dollars
handed out. A [7] new 2008 Boston Fed study shows minorities in
Massachusetts getting foreclosed on subprime loans at twice the race of
whites, suggesting that minorities accounted for a sizable majority of
subprime dollars defaulted.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives..._fha_mortg.php

American Renaissance is a white supremacist rag. Got a credible source?

Datesfat

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message

American Renaissance is a white supremacist rag. Got a credible source?

I've no 'side' on this matter, no agenda. I simply did a google search.

The information given on this site is not their statistics, it's merely
their
article. The statistics come from Forbes, FHA and HUD.

Virtually no one will argue the fact that Dodd and B. Frank pushed
hard for minority loans. Likewise, almost no one would argue that
mostly white guys in suits on Wall Street divided the loans out in
a million directions to pad their own pockets.

Do your own homework if you don't like the results.

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

83LowRider wrote:

I've no 'side' on this matter, no agenda. I simply did a google search.

"It's on the web. It must be true." What an idiot.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER Coo, down to just five bikes!
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. And RTFM.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

Long Ranger wrote:

You are using the classic liberal foil.

You're using the typical right-wing pack of lies. Go you.

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

On Jun 30, 7:16 pm, "Datesfat Chicks"
wrote:

And win, because I don't argue unless I know what I'm talking about.

You STILL haven't provided any credible evidence that minorities were
responsible for the financial crisis. Most experts seem to believe they
were not ...

"most experts"? Prove that please!

Most experts I've talked too tell me the issue is quite complex but
certainly government-caused. But there is more than enough blame to go
around to everyone.

To say that the bad loans were "all" from minorities is obviously an
over-simplification for a political agenda. However, minorities did
indeed play a role because they do tend to be disproportionately
represented in the poor segments of society. But the problem wasn't
"minorities" but loans made to persons who could not really afford
them. And part of the reason this was done was regulations encouraging
loans to the poor (of all situations). So banks and others began to
make loans to person who could in no way pay for them. And to cover
the facts of this, they made the loans in such a way that the major
payments and interest did not come due for a time. There was a period
of low payments which only covered interest or less and would step up
to realistic values later. Thus, the poor were lulled into thinking
they could afford that the "dream house" until the hammer fell. In the
mean time, the banks knowing the loans were going to crash and burn
once the real payment schedule kicked in tried to get out from under
the bad loans. They did this by trying to cover these loans with
insurance known as "credit default swaps". Once covered from losses
the loans that were sure to crash and burn one day were packaged into
bundles and sold as quality securities because they were in essence
insured. Wall street seeing huge commissions in the offing jumped in
hyping the whole scheme and making a fortune. And even worse, the
banking regulators changed the rules on how loans were carried on the
bank books. The new rule was that a property had to be carried at it's
"current value" rather than it's value at the time of the loan. It's
complex stuff, but the end result was that as the housing market
crashed the rule meant that the banks "assets" were disappearing,
which meant that it needed to produce the cash difference under
banking rules to stay open. It was money the banks didn't have and
couldn't get. So when the housing "bubble" burst everybody was on the
hook and ready to be taken down. Everybody was too smart for their own
good and were too happy raking in the profits off the bubble to have
made arrangements for the day when it all fell apart. At this point
the government had to step in and of course the private Federal
Reserve made sure that ownership or at least control of all these
banks fell to their stockholders. Money pretty much is coming from
taxpayers and everyone else (including minorities) by the huge
inflation sure to result from trillion or so dollars being 'spent" to
try to keep various outfits afloat.

So did minorities (or more exactly the poor) cause the problem:? Yes
they did. And what they did was to assume that those in power and in
Congress were actually trying to give them a break and a helping hand
so that they might find a way to lift themselves out of the lives
they've had for so long. Needless to say it was all a very clever scam
designed to funnel money and power to the few at the expense of the
many. And that really is what it's all about.

The real problem is that many of you reading this think you are doing
OK, when in fact you are already part of the "poor" but just don't
know it yet! The entire financial structure is a house of cards which
has been once again taped together with duct tape. The question isn't
"will it ever recover?" The Question is "What in hell is STILL keeping
it up?"

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

On Jul 1, 6:12*pm, dizzy wrote:
Long Ranger wrote:
You are using the classic liberal foil.

You're using the typical right-wing pack of lies. *Go you.

Left, Right they are all lying scum trying to control YOU and everyone
else's lives. People like that are an embarassment to the
species...what idjit would WANT to control others? Allowing for people
into B&D.