Obama Sucked Tonight

UncleBuck said:

funny how you now want to talk about the constitution. you shat all over that thing in the debates about arizona's unconstitutional laws and PA's unconstitutional poll tax.

nice attempt at spelling bureaucracy though. stick to pushing lawnmowers.

Click to expand...

For there to be a poll tax, everyone must have to pay it. There was no poll tax issue regardless of how you continuously try to re-frame the argument.

AZ's law was found to be constitutional by SCOTUS and the federal circuit. You are wrong about that too... Typical.

bedspirit said:

I know the CRA had nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

Well this is where you and I disagree.
In my opinion, anytime the federal government passes legislation that forces free market lenders to make high risk loans in undesirable communities, then that government bill has a part in the blame when those loans default. I don't see how any level headed person could see it otherwise.

NLXSK1 said:

For there to be a poll tax, everyone must have to pay it. There was no poll tax issue regardless of how you continuously try to re-frame the argument.

AZ's law was found to be constitutional by SCOTUS and the federal circuit. You are wrong about that too... Typical.

Click to expand...

one tiny part was found constitutional and only if enforced in a certain way that no LEO will dare want to cross, for one.

and tell me how you can vote in PA without first paying the government a sum of money. enlighten me, lawnmower pusher.

UncleBuck said:

one tiny part was found constitutional and only if enforced in a certain way that no LEO will dare want to cross, for one.

and tell me how you can vote in PA without first paying the government a sum of money. enlighten me, lawnmower pusher.

Click to expand...

You sponge 20 bucks off your rich in-laws....

NLXSK1 said:

You sponge 20 bucks off your rich in-laws....

Click to expand...

so they would have to pay the government a sum of money in order to vote and that is constitutional how?

beenthere said:

Well this is where you and I disagree.
In my opinion, anytime the federal government passes legislation that forces free market lenders to make high risk loans in undesirable communities, then that government bill has a part in the blame when those loans default. I don't see how any level headed person could see it otherwise.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with you if the gov't had forced the banks to do give out risky loans, but the CRA doesn't force the banks to do anything. A low CRA score only makes it more difficult for banks to merge, there is no real teeth in the CRA. As I keep pointing out, most of the institutions who gave out the loans weren't even regulated by the CRA, banks that were had extremely high CRA scores therefore not motivated to make bad loans just to pad their scores, and no CEO of any bank ever made the claim that they were forced to give out risky loans.

This is phony propaganda that's used to excuse criminal behavior on Wall Street. It's one thing when Democrats and Republicans point fingers at each other to cover their own asses, but when they do it to cover the asses of their wealthy donors, it's especially repulsive.

thought obama was bad, LOL look at this whore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcIuB1ONu7A my god she almost pulled off a howard dean. im surprised a bigger deal wasnt made of it. she looked like a fool. guess shes used to it after running michigan though. im liking snyder so much better. he's never nagged on medical weed but jennifer has always been against it. snyder even legalized more dangerous fireworks and got rid of the helmet law. props to him. although i could always light off illegal fireworks cause i live on the indian res. we dont even have to go by the smoking ban in businesses in michigan. should be up to the businesses anyway, not the government. they just have to get rid of that fucking douchebag bill shuette. some one needs to shove a large sativa plant up his ass sideways.

bedspirit said:

I'd agree with you if the gov't had forced the banks to do give out risky loans, but the CRA doesn't force the banks to do anything. A low CRA score only makes it more difficult for banks to merge, there is no real teeth in the CRA. As I keep pointing out, most of the institutions who gave out the loans weren't even regulated by the CRA, banks that were had extremely high CRA scores therefore not motivated to make bad loans just to pad their scores, and no CEO of any bank ever made the claim that they were forced to give out risky loans.

This is phony propaganda that's used to excuse criminal behavior on Wall Street. It's one thing when Democrats and Republicans point fingers at each other to cover their own asses, but when they do it to cover the asses of their wealthy donors, it's especially repulsive.

Click to expand...

This is a very in depth and complicated bill, when you say there is no real teeth in the CRA to enforce it's will, you might want to do a little reading up on the matter. Noncompliance appears to come with a price!

The Fair Housing Act7 (FHA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act8 (ECOA) are two important laws relating to lending in minority applicants and predominantly minority communities. They complement and supplement the CRA in coverage and enforcement. While it is very difficult to enforce the CRA in court, the FHA and ECOA mandate strict penalties for violations, including monetary damages, and both can be enforced in court by private individuals or groups and by government agencies at the behest of private parties.

The second opportunity the federal banking agencies have to enforce the CRA comes when they are considering a bank’s application to expand its business.22 The agencies consider a bank’s CRA record when considering six types of applications, including an application to obtain a charter, obtain deposit insurance, establish a branch, relocate a home office or branch, merge with another bank, or obtain the assets or assume the liabilities of another bank.

beenthere said:

This is a very in depth and complicated bill, when you say there is no real teeth in the CRA to enforce it's will, you might want to do a little reading up on the matter. Noncompliance appears to come with a price!

The Fair Housing Act7 (FHA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act8 (ECOA) are two important laws relating to lending in minority applicants and predominantly minority communities. They complement and supplement the CRA in coverage and enforcement. While it is very difficult to enforce the CRA in court, the FHA and ECOA mandate strict penalties for violations, including monetary damages, and both can be enforced in court by private individuals or groups and by government agencies at the behest of private parties.

The second opportunity the federal banking agencies have to enforce the CRA comes when they are considering a bank’s application to expand its business.22 The agencies consider a bank’s CRA record when considering six types of applications, including an application to obtain a charter, obtain deposit insurance, establish a branch, relocate a home office or branch, merge with another bank, or obtain the assets or assume the liabilities of another bank.

Click to expand...

I have to give a ton of credit. Instead of just ignoring my posts, you did your own research. However, I think you were too focused on trying to prove me wrong and you missed the point of the document you quoted. This is a link to where you got this: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...&sig=AHIEtbRVIHcwRjQXWTJu_SsPGwPbhPeS2Q&pli=1

Do you know what this document is? This is something a consumer advocacy group published in 2001. They are freaking out because the CRA had become unenforceable. They like the CRA and they're trying to come up with ways to keep it relevant. This supports exactly what I'm saying. How can you blame the CRA when no one could even enforce it? Here's another quote from that same doc:

The federal banking agencies have been unwilling to enforce the CRA aggressively or hold banks to strict lending standards.

Click to expand...

They want community groups to step in and try to enforce it themselves because they don't feel like the government gives a fuck.

The reason it's so hard to enforce is laid out in the first paragraph. Remember how I told you that all the banks already had high CRA scores? The reason is because banks had become so big and diverse. A bank can own a pay day loan business and count that toward their CRA score. Those aren't the kind of loans that it was meant to encourage so theoretically, a bank could still deny people from neighborhoods they didn't like and not worry about it impacting their CRA score. This is why the consumer advocacy group you quoted was so pissed. This is from the introduction:

Banks are fewer in number and larger in size. They are national and international in scope. They are becoming increasingly complex institutions and now, with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, banks can continue to expand the financial services they offer.4 Banks are relying less on branches for providing services and more on the internet and other off-site means. As banks become larger and more comprehensive financial institutions, taking deposits and making loans may become less a part of what they do and it may become more difficult to enforce the CRA against them.

Click to expand...

You said that noncompliance came with a price. But notice that in your post, you didn't mention any fines or anything. As I told you, it makes it hard for a bank to merge. I'm guilty of leaving out the fact that it makes it hard to expand as well. Not that it matters. Here's something else from your document:

Although the federal banking agencies have assumed the authority to deny a bank’s expansion application on the grounds that the bank has a poor CRA record, the CRA regulations do not mandate a denial. Nor do the regulations make clear the weight the federal banking agencies will give to a poor CRA record when considering an expansion application. In addition, the courts give substantial deference to the decisions of the federal banking agencies on expansion applications challenged on CRA grounds.24 It is thus difficult to challenge a banking agency’s approval of an expansion application in court on the grounds that the bank had a poorCRA record. Finally, it does not require a bank to make loans as a remedy for a poor CRA record.

Click to expand...

To be clear, the FHA and ECOA are not part of the CRA. That group that wrote your document is encouraging other concerned liberals to use those more restrictive laws to help make up for the fact that the CRA is so difficult to enforce.

I take back that shit I said about you being a brainwashed zombie. You obviously are looking for the truth. I just can't believe that you tried to find it from some big government consumer advocacy group! That's like sleeping with the enemy!

bedspirit said:

I'd agree with you if the gov't had forced the banks to do give out risky loans, but the CRA doesn't force the banks to do anything. A low CRA score only makes it more difficult for banks to merge, there is no real teeth in the CRA. As I keep pointing out, most of the institutions who gave out the loans weren't even regulated by the CRA, banks that were had extremely high CRA scores therefore not motivated to make bad loans just to pad their scores, and no CEO of any bank ever made the claim that they were forced to give out risky loans.

This is phony propaganda that's used to excuse criminal behavior on Wall Street. It's one thing when Democrats and Republicans point fingers at each other to cover their own asses, but when they do it to cover the asses of their wealthy donors, it's especially repulsive.

Click to expand...

Actually Obama sued Citibank and forced them to give African American in Chicago subprime loans that they couldn't afford. Out of the 186 loans, only 19 paid as intended, most went to foreclosure.

nontheist said:

Actually Obama sued Citibank and forced them to give African American in Chicago subprime loans that they couldn't afford. Out of the 186 loans, only 19 paid as intended, most went to foreclosure.

Click to expand...

Did he sue them on CRA grounds? I doubt very much that he did since the CRA doesn't address race. He probably sued them on FHA or ECOA grounds if it was a discrimination thing. Remember I don't give a fuck about defending every regulation the government has put in place. I know the government sucks. I'm just saying that the CRA didn't force banks to do shit.

bedspirit said:

Did he sue them on CRA grounds? I doubt very much that he did since the CRA doesn't address race. He probably sued them on FHA or ECOA grounds if it was a discrimination thing. Remember I don't give a fuck about defending every regulation the government has put in place. I know the government sucks. I'm just saying that the CRA didn't force banks to do shit.

Click to expand...

Redlining:

The CRA was also part of an effort to prevent what was referred to as “redlining.” Redlining refers to the practice by bankers of literally drawing a red line around certain areas (typically LMI neighborhoods) on a map and declaring that no loans or mortgages will be made that originate from the redlined area. The issue was that many financial institutions that redlined certain areas took deposits from these areas, effectively using the deposits of the poor to fund credit for the rich. Therefore, in combination with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 or “HMDA”, Congress passed the CRA and regulators began seeking out redlining and stopping it.


Perhaps the most significant piece of legislation affecting the CRA was the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which made CRA performance evaluations a major determinant in whether or not the government would approve bank mergers, acquisitions, and the opening of new branches. Essentially, when a bank wanted to expand via one of the aforementioned processes the Federal Reserve – though possibly another agency – would complete a CRA evaluation of the bank. The CRA evaluation would then be presented to the public and community organizers, such as ACORN, would have the ability to review the CRA evaluations. If a bank was underperforming in the eyes of the government or the community organizers, either party had the ability to object to the merger/acquisition/new branch. Such objections have a very high potential to halt a bank’s expansion. So, any bank within CRA areas had to be sure to carefully follow CRA rules or else their ability to expand would be seriously impeded.

nontheist said:

[TD="class: label"]Case Name[/TD]
[TD="class: fieldMultiLine"] Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank [/TD]
[TD="align: right"] FH-IL-0011[/TD]

[TD="class: label"] Docket / Court[/TD]
[TD="class: field"] 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. )[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]

[TD="class: label"] State/Territory[/TD]
[TD="class: field"] Illinois[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]

[TD="class: label"] Case Type(s)[/TD]
[TD="class: tight, colspan: 2"] Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance[/TD]

[TD="class: label"] Case Summary[/TD]
[TD="class: tight, colspan: 2"] Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

This case has received a good deal of press and blogger attention because one of the plaintiffs' lawyers was Barack Obama, then just a couple of years out of law school.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the plaintiffs' suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank's loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties settled the case on May 12, 1998, with an agreement that provided for waiver of some fees for class members, should they reapply for a loan, and also for various procedures to ensure that Citibank followed its own loan policies in a race neutral way.

Andrew Nash - 06/02/2008 [/TD]

Redlining:

The CRA was also part of an effort to prevent what was referred to as “redlining.” Redlining refers to the practice by bankers of literally drawing a red line around certain areas (typically LMI neighborhoods) on a map and declaring that no loans or mortgages will be made that originate from the redlined area. The issue was that many financial institutions that redlined certain areas took deposits from these areas, effectively using the deposits of the poor to fund credit for the rich. Therefore, in combination with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 or “HMDA”, Congress passed the CRA and regulators began seeking out redlining and stopping it.


Perhaps the most significant piece of legislation affecting the CRA was the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which made CRA performance evaluations a major determinant in whether or not the government would approve bank mergers, acquisitions, and the opening of new branches. Essentially, when a bank wanted to expand via one of the aforementioned processes the Federal Reserve – though possibly another agency – would complete a CRA evaluation of the bank. The CRA evaluation would then be presented to the public and community organizers, such as ACORN, would have the ability to review the CRA evaluations. If a bank was underperforming in the eyes of the government or the community organizers, either party had the ability to object to the merger/acquisition/new branch. Such objections have a very high potential to halt a bank’s expansion. So, any bank within CRA areas had to be sure to carefully follow CRA rules or else their ability to expand would be seriously impeded.

Click to expand...

Damn. You just keep doing the same thing over and over. Can you not read the quotes you post? The grounds under which that suit was file was ECOA. It says so in the first sentence of the case summary. The exact regulation that I assumed it must have been filed under. Just because they used the word "redlining" and the CRA was enacted to prevent redlining does not change regulation which the case was filed under. Read the response I gave to beenthere. It's hard as fuck to get a court to enforce the CRA. The CRA specifically gives banks an out that they can use in court. I'm sure this is why Obama went with the ECOA.

As for the parts of your redlining definition that you chose to highlight, we already have established that. I've been saying that. A low CRA score can make it difficult for a bank to merge or expand. But again, I refer you to the response I gave to beenthere. The government wasn't enforcing it. That is why groups like ACORN started trying to do it themselves. Beenthere posted from a blueprint that details exactly how consumer advocates can do it.

You've certainly shown that the ECOA can backfire. Something I don't deny at all. What you haven't done is show that the CRA has anything to do with the crash of the housing bubble which is what I'm saying. But, at least you're reading up. I take back that shit I said to you about being a brainwashed zombie as well. you're obviously looking for the truth.

Edit: Looks like they sued for a violation of the FHA as well. That was the other regulation I mentioned.

it's a echo chamber thing

You google it and all that comes up is the same race baiting crap that nontolerance posted repeated ad nauseum thru out the blogging world

No major news organization went with the story
not even Fox

bedspirit said:

You said that noncompliance came with a price. But notice that in your post, you didn't mention any fines or anything. As I told you, it makes it hard for a bank to merge. I'm guilty of leaving out the fact that it makes it hard to expand as well. Not that it matters. Here's something else from your document:


To be clear, the FHA and ECOA are not part of the CRA. That group that wrote your document is encouraging other concerned liberals to use those more restrictive laws to help make up for the fact that the CRA is so difficult to enforce.

I take back that shit I said about you being a brainwashed zombie. You obviously are looking for the truth. I just can't believe that you tried to find it from some big government consumer advocacy group! That's like sleeping with the enemy!

Click to expand...

Perhaps you are stuck on the fact you believe a bill or an act (CRA) is somehow a government entity!

The ECOA (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) and the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) are statutes, the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) is a federal government entity, two different animals my friend!

The CRA is enforced by federal finance regulators like FDIC, and the OCC which is an arm of the treasury department.

Claiming that penalties that consist of the inability for a bank to open up more branches, merge with other banks or receive government backed insurance has no teeth is either admitting ignorance or deception.

But I will give you an A+ for confidence!

nontheist said:

You have become an idiot Canndo, thinking CRA had nothing to do with the housing bubble.

Click to expand...

Rather than insult me, how about giving us some figures, how many subprime, CRA influenced morgages failed compared to others. How did the CRA have anything to do with morgage backed securities?

Unregulated private lenders were responsible for the bulk of all subprime loans and those loans were given to middle and uppermiddle income borrowers, not lower income borrowers.


"Dean Baker stated, “Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector….In short, while Fannie and Freddie were completely irresponsible in their lending practices, the claim that they were responsible for the financial disaster is absurd on its face—kind of like the claim that the earth is flat.” - In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld acknowledged that Fannie and Freddie’s role in Lehman’s demise was “de minimis,” or so small that it does not matter."

beenthere said:

Perhaps you are stuck on the fact you believe a bill or an act (CRA) is somehow a government entity!

The ECOA (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) and the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) are statutes, the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) is a federal government entity, two different animals my friend!

The CRA is enforced by federal finance regulators like FDIC, and the OCC which is an arm of the treasury department.

Claiming that penalties that consist of the inability for a bank to open up more branches, merge with other banks or receive government backed insurance has no teeth is either admitting ignorance or deception.

But I will give you an A+ for confidence!

Click to expand...

I believe I was referring to the Fair Housing Act. Remember the thing you quoted? Let me refresh your memory:

The Fair Housing Act7 (FHA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act8 (ECOA) are two important laws relating to lending in minority applicants and predominantly minority communities. They complement and supplement the CRA in coverage and enforcement. While it is very difficult to enforce the CRA in court, the FHA and ECOA mandate strict penalties for violations, including monetary damages, and both can be enforced in court by private individuals or groups and by government agencies at the behest of private parties.

Click to expand...

You quoted that. Not me. So you should know what the FHA is. The reason I'm confident is because I'm especially well read on this particular subject. I didn't start googling the subject yesterday.

If I recall, you were in the construction business, right? You should remember the years leading up to the crash. Banks were giving loans to anyone who walked in the door. It was like a fucking gold rush. Do you really believe the banks had just decided to pad the living fuck out their CRA scores and that's why they were lending to anyone with a pulse? CRA had been around a long time and had, in fact become obsolete after the repeal of Glass Steagall. Sort of an odd time for banks to give a fuck about it, don't you think?

bedspirit said:

I believe I was referring to the Fair Housing Act. Remember the thing you quoted? Let me refresh your memory: No need to refresh my memory, I was typing at a fast rate and meant to say FDIC, there's some many government agencies that deal with housing and banking that start with the letter F, I made simple mistake. My point is, the CRA is just a statute and not an entity, and the fact that the FDIC is one of the regulating bodies that enforce these statutes has yet to be addressed by you.


You quoted that. Not me. So you should know what the FHA is. The reason I'm confident is because I'm especially well read on this particular subject. I didn't start googling the subject yesterday.

If I recall, you were in the construction business, right? You should remember the years leading up to the crash. Banks were giving loans to anyone who walked in the door. I remember well, I made a ton of money because of it. But this is the part you are failing to digest my friend, in order for banks to compete for that market share, they had to fall in line with the CRA guidelines or fail to exist. If banks wanted to branch and grow in order to fill the demand or become federally insured, or merge with other banks, etc. they had to conform! In other words, the federal government, by legislation was laying the groundwork for winners and losers. It was like a fucking gold rush. Do you really believe the banks had just decided to pad the living fuck out their CRA scores and that's why they were lending to anyone with a pulse? CRA had been around a long time and had, in fact become obsolete after the repeal of Glass Steagall. Sort of an odd time for banks to give a fuck about it, don't you think?

Click to expand...

Not sure I follow your last paragraph, it's actually all over the place.
But the issue is it's not that banks were padding CRA scores (which they were), it was the fact the CRA was in essence making banks conform or risk the consequences.

This is a classic example of crony capitalism, I can't believe you don't see it!

beenthere said:

This has to be one of the worst speeches by a president I've witnessed, a major disappointment and FAIL for the Obamanites.

The poor guy regurgitated all the promises he failed to deliver four years ago, republicans will have a field day with this.

"I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy. I never have. You didn’t elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear. You elected me to tell you the truth. And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades."


Really Barack, I could have sworn you said you would cut the deficit in half by your first term!

And didn't you say if you can't, your presidency would become a one term proposition?

All I heard was, hey I may not have done what I thought I could do, but please give me four more years and another try!

​

Click to expand...

there's already a GloryHole thread in Spirituality Sexuality and Philosophy. not sure if reporting as spam....

beenthere said:

Not sure I follow your last paragraph, it's actually all over the place.
But the issue is it's not that banks were padding CRA scores (which they were), it was the fact the CRA was in essence making banks conform or risk the consequences.

This is a classic example of crony capitalism, I can't believe you don't see it!

Click to expand...

They weren't padding their scores and I used your own sources to show you that. They didn't need to. Everyone already had high CRA scores and I challenge you to show otherwise.

The reason this is important is not because I give two craps about the CRA. I think it should be repealed. Not because it forces the banks to do anything, but because it's a pointless piece of bureaucracy. None of the major banks will be in any danger of having a low score yet they still have to spend time and resources calculating and reporting the figures.

The reason it's important is because the recession was caused by a lack of regulation. Specifically by the repeal of Glass Steagall. It used to be that a bank made their money off the interest from your mortgage. After the repeal, they could make their money off of selling your mortgage to investors. Now, they don't care about your ability to pay back your loan. This is why they were giving out so many mortgages to people who clearly would not be able to pay them back. They needed more product to bundle and sell to investors. By the time the poor sucker defaults on his loan, the bank has already sold it. In most cases they went ahead and bet against it through AIG so they can make even more money off of it.

What's brilliant about what the banks have done since the crash, is that they've convinced dudes like you that it was too much regulation that caused this. You're so convinced that you will never admit you're wrong. That's some thorough brainwashing. If they could convince enough of you guys, they could actually come out of this thing with even less regulation than before.

edit

How long have you been in the construction business? Long enough to have seen the start of the bubble?
The CRA was double downed in 1994. From my observation, it was late 2002 when banks really starting lending like crazy. If the CRA was to blame, then why did it take so long for them to do this? why didn't it happen in 95 or 96? Why did it take 8 years?

edit agian

You actually typed out Federal Housing Authority. Still expect me to believe that you meant to type FDIC? Or is it that all this stuff is new to you and you don't know what you're talking about?