PDA

View Full Version : Feds forcing banks to keep making bad loans



AUTaxMan
07-12-2011, 12:57 PM
with the threat of being labeled racist.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=577794&p=1

Isn't this type of policy what started this housing mess snowball in the first place?

(The answer to my question is "yes").

texansrangerfan73
07-12-2011, 01:10 PM
with the threat of being labeled racist.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=577794&p=1

Isn't this type of policy what started this housing mess snowball in the first place?

(The answer to my question is "yes").

Yes & Yes. I wouldn't expect no less from a overpowering Federal Government!!

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 01:47 PM
Whaaattt...really? Can't be true.
Seriously though, Holder maybe one of the worst people on the planet. Definitely one of the worst people to hold his job...(Does that make me racist??)

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 02:14 PM
Whaaattt...really? Can't be true.
Seriously though, Holder maybe one of the worst people on the planet. Definitely one of the worst people to hold his job...(Does that make me racist??)

No, but being a racist makes you racist.

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 02:18 PM
No, but being a racist makes you racist.
not steeping to this level..........

Star_Cards
07-12-2011, 03:41 PM
I would think a loan application process would be something that doesn't see race. Enter in your wages and stats and if you make enough cash then you qualify.

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 03:42 PM
I would think a loan application process would be something that doesn't see race. Enter in your wages and stats and if you make enough cash then you qualify.
You would think that should be the way.....

OnePimpTiger
07-12-2011, 03:43 PM
No, but being a racist makes you racist.


Am I what ? Your daddy ? Probably not, I'm pro choice.

So you've decided to avoid any semblance of actual debate and just stick to the insults now?

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 04:00 PM
So you've decided to avoid any semblance of actual debate and just stick to the insults now?

Only with sanfran and you since neither of you deserve the courtesy of debate. What's funny is, as much as you are in here complainig about me you sure like to respond to everything I say.

Star_Cards
07-12-2011, 04:01 PM
Only with sanfran and you since neither of you deserve the courtesy of debate.

why don't they deserve the courtesy of debate?

OnePimpTiger
07-12-2011, 04:29 PM
why don't they deserve the courtesy of debate?

Because we disagree with him and back our opinions up with facts...that's just unacceptable!

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 04:30 PM
Because we disagree with him and back our opinions up with facts...that's just unacceptable!

Thats debatable. Most of your posts and his are void of any factual information. Trying to back up your opinions with opinioins doesn't = facts

OnePimpTiger
07-12-2011, 04:43 PM
Thats debatable. Most of your posts and his are void of any factual information. Trying to back up your opinions with opinioins doesn't = facts

Like these of yours?


http://www.nypress.com/article-22306-tax-the-rich_.html

An editorial piece from a liberal paper



http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/stmt/2003/statement_signed.pdf?nocdn=1

And when you try to back it up, you post a link that proves the article wrong and the opinion of 14 economists as your proof.

You never did respond as to why the factual table you posted from the CBO completely contradicts the article you were using as your basis for argument...I know, it's hard to admit when you're wrong.

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 06:28 PM
Like these of yours?



An editorial piece from a liberal paper



And when you try to back it up, you post a link that proves the article wrong and the opinion of 14 economists as your proof.

You never did respond as to why the factual table you posted from the CBO completely contradicts the article you were using as your basis for argument...I know, it's hard to admit when you're wrong.



Bush boom bah


You know you’re a serious wonk when you wait eagerly each year for the arrival of the CBO’s “Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates.” But it’s much more than a tax report — it’s the single best estimate we have of trends in income and income inequality. The tables (Excel file) are here.

Lots to parse in this report — which only gets us up to 2005 — but here’s one quick calculation. As you may know, for several years the Bush administration and its defenders did a lot of whining about the economy, wondering why they weren’t getting credit for what they insisted was a great economic success.

Well, if you look at the estimates of gains from 2003 to 2005, by position in the income distribution, all becomes clear.

Here’s what the numbers say about percentage gains in after-tax income from 2003 to 2005:

Bottom quintile: 2%
Next quintile: 2.4%
Middle quintile: 3.9%
Fourth quintile: 3.7%
Top quintile: 16%

Top 10%: 20.9%
Top 5%: 27.7%
Top 1%: 43.5%

It was a boom, all right — but only for a few people.

One other thing that’s striking from the report, by the way, is that over the 26 years the estimates span, the only significant gains for the bottom two quintiles, and most of the gains for the middle quintile, took place during the Clinton years. Exactly why is an interesting question, but the empirical fact is that over the past generation the only good years for lower and middle income families were when a Democrat was in the White House. This is an example of a broader, and honestly mysterious, correlation identified by Larry Bartels in his paper “Partisan politics and the U.S. income distribution.”



BTW did you not just post about the tea party crashes with about 4 links to RW blogs.. and you're going to cry about me using a liberal paper. Your rediculous.

jibron86
07-27-2011, 04:02 AM
if u guys have a netflix account i suggest watching inside job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzrBurlJUNk

thanks johnnaseri

sanfran22
07-27-2011, 10:54 AM
Is that elliot spitzer?? lol. Not sure I'd trust anything he says ;)