Trump says he's out now, bring the next the GOP candidate to bail... NEXT..

The word is Obama had something on him with prostitution in his casinos. I heard he would drop out a week ago.

The main stream word seems to be that he didn't want the Gov digging into his finances. I'm sure he has plenty of skeletons in that closet.

Finance Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The main stream word seems to be that he didn't
> want the Gov digging into his finances. I'm sure
> he has plenty of skeletons in that closet.


The Governement would not be "digging into" his finances. He would have to disclose his finances. There is a difference.

And as I said many times here before, and I was completely accurate, Trump will/would not run because

a) three ex wives - the Christian Conservatives would not let that fly
b) financial disclosures as stated above

also, Donald does not have skeletons in his closet. They are more like ghosts and phantoms and a zombie or two.

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

Trump is an egotistical jackoff.

Still Trump has far, far more business sense than Media Boy Wonder Barack and his worthless community organizing experience.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Don't know how you could say he has business sense when all he does is parlay bankruptcies. Reminds me of another failed business man that actually became president..and was god awful at that too.

I don't know what background you should have in order to become somewhat qualified as a president...but repeated bankrupt businesses a la Bush and Trump does not a good president make.

Then we have Newt...god what a name. Makes me smirk the same way I would every time I'd hear someone say Colin Powell's name (why did he choose to be called colon!?). Anyway I digress, Newt...he panders to the Christian right but one need only google his past misdeeds to see what an utter douche of a husband he is/was. A total hypocrite in all things the Christian right holds dear...wonder how the right will embrace him for 2012...should be interesting.

Trump has had some business bankruptcies, but I believe he comes out ahead at the end of the day.

Would you rather have leader who bankrupts a few corporate entities with willing risk taking investors, or a media-fave "community organizer" who bankrupts the whole fucking nation??

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then we have Newt...god what a name.

+1

Barack Hussein Obama is WAY better name!

BHO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Britdrnva~ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Then we have Newt...god what a name.
>
> +1
>
> Barack Hussein Obama is WAY better name!


But the Middle East likes us SOOOOO much better, Barack having a Muslim name, a Muslim father and being a man of color.

It's all peace and happiness over there now!!

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trump has had some business bankruptcies, but I
> believe he comes out ahead at the end of the day.
>
> Would you rather have leader who bankrupts a few
> corporate entities with willing risk taking
> investors, or a media-fave "community organizer"
> who bankrupts the whole fucking nation??


Um, W did that just fine. Or did you miss how he more than doubled defense spending while 'cutting' taxes and wiped out a budget surplus? Face it, they've all got problems and they all screw things up to one degree or another.

No one is still defending Bush, but if you came in when Obuma did and chose to continue funding and expanding overseas wars, crippling the business economy with Obamacare AND hiking up the debt to record levels with the pointless "Stimulus Plan", I think Obumass has his own explaining to do.

Agreed, but since the Stimulus got the Fairfax county parkway finished through the old EPG area, I can't complain about it. :-)

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Um, W did that just fine. Or did you miss how he
> more than doubled defense spending while
> 'cutting' taxes and wiped out a budget surplus?
> Face it, they've all got problems and they all
> screw things up to one degree or another.

Amen! Conservatives like to portray themselves as "saving and tax cutting." IN reality they are the biggest spenders of taxpayer funded programs. Not only that but Republicans end up starting more wars and getting more Americans killed then ANY democratic.

So sick of Republicans and their bi-polar disorders.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one is still defending Bush, but if you came in
> when Obuma did and chose to continue funding and
> expanding overseas wars, crippling the business
> economy with Obamacare AND hiking up the debt to
> record levels with the pointless "Stimulus Plan",
> I think Obumass has his own explaining to do.

The only reason the stimulus had to happen was because Bush devastated the economy over his last four years in office. Bush drove the banks and housing industries into bankruptcy by letting them run wild with no regulations.

As for the wars... Who do think started the wars? Certainly your not implying that Obama started the wars and want to escalate them?

Repubes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shadow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Um, W did that just fine. Or did you miss how
> he
> > more than doubled defense spending while
> > 'cutting' taxes and wiped out a budget surplus?
>
> > Face it, they've all got problems and they all
> > screw things up to one degree or another.
>
> Amen! Conservatives like to portray themselves as
> "saving and tax cutting." IN reality they are the
> biggest spenders of taxpayer funded programs. Not
> only that but Republicans end up starting more
> wars and getting more Americans killed then ANY
> democratic.
>
> So sick of Republicans and their bi-polar
> disorders.

Thanks for your input Lopter. But tell me, who is responsible for Viet Nam and Korea?

Bush Whacked Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only reason the stimulus had to happen was
> because Bush devastated the economy over his last
> four years in office. Bush drove the banks and
> housing industries into bankruptcy by letting them
> run wild with no regulations.

Please point to one policy or peice of legislation that deregulated the housing industry under the Bush Administration.

Oh my!
Attachments:

Bush Whacked Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only reason the stimulus had to happen was
> because Bush devastated the economy over his last
> four years in office. Bush drove the banks and
> housing industries into bankruptcy by letting them
> run wild with no regulations.

Clinton sign legislation that "deregulated" lending. Dems pushed for the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make loans to high risk individuals. Speculators and economically illiterate homebuyers did the rest.
Dems like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank resisted every attempt at regualtation.


> As for the wars... Who do think started the wars?
> Certainly your not implying that Obama started
> the wars and want to escalate them?

Dems had plenty of time with both the House and Senate since 2006 elections to defund the wars, they chose not too. When Obama took the WH, they chose not to go that path. Obama has followed the Pentagon strategy of a troop surge in Iraq that started under Bush. A lot of bullshit and hot air from a supposed anti-war president.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agreed, but since the Stimulus got the Fairfax
> county parkway finished through the old EPG area,
> I can't complain about it. :-)


The stimulas was never needed to finish 7100.

Had our beloved past governor not "misplaced" $700 million in VDOT funds........a lot more than the parkway could have been could have been taken care of.

Repubes Wrote:
> So sick of Republicans and their bi-polar
> disorders.


I'm so sick of people talking out of their asses.

Why pick on Obama or anyone else in an elected position?

Because it's THEIR FUCKING TURN!

Why is it so hard to get that if they're politicians, they're out to fuck us?

Doesn't matter which side they're on....it's not yours.

If life as so much better being governed by a Democrat...........explain Connolly.

If this country can remember one thing our forefathers said, it should be don't trust your government.

They're here to help anyone but themselves.

I agree Obama is a horrible name too...but it's not tadpole or colon.

And I agree with you Wingnut - Obama has continued the Bush policies (it's a wonder the right-wingers hate him and are frothing at the bit to get him out) on just about every account...the wars are going strong, the stimulus funding finance/corporations over the people, tax cuts extended, Guantanamo wide open for business, PATRIOT Act still going.

The country did come crashing down under Bush, his policies and pro-business laissez-faire policies are a large part of it...and you're right it all started when Glas-Steagle occurred under Clinton..just got much, much worse under Bush the result is today's continued mess.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (it's a wonder the right-wingers
> hate him and are frothing at the bit to get him
> out) on just about every account...the wars are
> going strong, the stimulus funding
> finance/corporations over the people, tax cuts
> extended, Guantanamo wide open for business,
> PATRIOT Act still going.


I kind of laugh at some of the righty hypocrisy that was prevelant with the TSA screening- fine with it when it was a Bush policy, but totally philosophically opposed when Barry started doing it.

Anyway Obama is getting credit from the right for continiung some of these Bush policies regarding war and counterterrorism. As far as taxes go, listen to what Obama says he wants to do and compare it with what he is able to do.


> The country did come crashing down under Bush, his
> policies and pro-business laissez-faire policies
> are a large part of it...and you're right it all
> started when Glas-Steagle occurred under
> Clinton..just got much, much worse under Bush the
> result is today's continued mess.

The economy crashed from a hybrid mix of deregulation and borrower ignorance, I put most of the blame on the end user just as I blame the alcoholic more than the liquor store.

Unfortunately few people have come to terms with what caused the crash and politicians prefer to pander to the economically illiterate borrowers and treat them as victims instead of as key players in the problem.

Little has changed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 01:02PM by WingNut.

Trump got his ass handed to him...

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush Whacked Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

>
> Clinton sign legislation that "deregulated"
> lending. Dems pushed for the Community
> Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make loans
> to high risk individuals. Speculators and
> economically illiterate homebuyers did the rest.
> Dems like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank resisted
> every attempt at regulation.

I will forgive you because you watch Fox News and you do not know any better.

A study at the University of Nebraska (no liberal bastion there) a couple years ago looked at the numbers for all the foreclosures in recent years and found that only 6% of the foreclosed loans were subject to to the Community Reinvestment Act. The other 94% of the foreclosures were from entities NOT subject to the Community Reinvestment Act. Entities like Countrywide Mortgage, Wells Fargo Mortgage and 100s of other non banks and not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.

Critics of the law conveniently ignore that about 75 percent of ALL sub-prime loans were not covered by CRA wether foreclosed or not. They also ignore the fact that most reckless and damaging subprime lending occurred between 2003 and 2007, long after CRA’s passage in 1977.

But you watch Fox News so you would not know this.

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bush Whacked Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> > Clinton sign legislation that "deregulated"
> > lending. Dems pushed for the Community
> > Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make
> loans
> > to high risk individuals. Speculators and
> > economically illiterate homebuyers did the
> rest.
> > Dems like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank resisted
> > every attempt at regulation.
>
> I will forgive you because you watch Fox News and
> you do not know any better.
>
> A study at the University of Nebraska (no liberal
> bastion there) a couple years ago looked at the
> numbers for all the foreclosures in recent years
> and found that only 6% of the foreclosed loans
> were subject to to the Community Reinvestment Act.
> The other 94% of the foreclosures were from
> entities NOT subject to the Community Reinvestment
> Act. Entities like Countrywide Mortgage, Wells
> Fargo Mortgage and 100s of other non banks and not
> subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.
>
> Critics of the law conveniently ignore that about
> 75 percent of ALL sub-prime loans were not covered
> by CRA wether foreclosed or not. They also ignore
> the fact that most reckless and damaging subprime
> lending occurred between 2003 and 2007, long after
> CRA’s passage in 1977.
>
> But you watch Fox News so you would not know this.

So, what news outlet told people like you that Bush deregulated the housing industry?

That myth is told over and over and over again. And, unlike the CRA story, has no basis in fact whatsoever.

Also, given the fact that you have been known to fabricate "facts" on this board in the past, please provide a link to the aforementioned study. A simple google search of University of Nebraska forclosure study CRA yielded no such study.

Trump explains his Casino going under.

I see Registered Voter is back.

Community Reinvestment Act was part of the problem, not all of it.

ASk yourself this, Radiophile/Pedophile/Copraphile... why have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac been involved in the lending process? What is the need for our tax dollars to back these risky loans and WHY did the Democrats keep supporting the corrupt and inept institutions?



Oh, it's all Wall Streets fault.

Fuck you punkass faggot.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

i love the part where he said he wont run but if he did he would win. i mean, could he be more arrogant?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Arnold didn't run on family values? WTF are you talking about? When are Republicans going to learn the internet is here now and they can't make shit up any more.

The first words out his mouth in his election speech were it's all about Maria. Why don't you count how many times he kisses her during his election speeches.

Just another Republican hypocrite as usual.

@ NotFamilyValues?

Arnold, unlike you, can get pussy. He probably loves and loved his wife but like a lot of us couldn't always keep his dick in his pants.


Nowhere is Ahnold ever railing the same shit about 'family values' as is sometimes correctly and sometimes erroneously attirbuted to conservatives.


And why do you get faggy and claim some kind of moral high ground when a man makes a mistake? Is your lecturing and false indignation any better than Falwells or Pat Robertsons?

EDIT-Turned off the BOLD from the last dickwad poster.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 08:35PM by WingNut.

Petie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WingNut Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Bush Whacked Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Clinton sign legislation that "deregulated"
> > > lending. Dems pushed for the Community
> > > Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make
> > loans
> > > to high risk individuals. Speculators and
> > > economically illiterate homebuyers did the
> > rest.
> > > Dems like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank
> resisted
> > > every attempt at regulation.
> >
> > I will forgive you because you watch Fox News
> and
> > you do not know any better.
> >
> > A study at the University of Nebraska (no
> liberal
> > bastion there) a couple years ago looked at the
> > numbers for all the foreclosures in recent
> years
> > and found that only 6% of the foreclosed loans
> > were subject to to the Community Reinvestment
> Act.
> > The other 94% of the foreclosures were from
> > entities NOT subject to the Community
> Reinvestment
> > Act. Entities like Countrywide Mortgage, Wells
> > Fargo Mortgage and 100s of other non banks and
> not
> > subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.
> >
> > Critics of the law conveniently ignore that
> about
> > 75 percent of ALL sub-prime loans were not
> covered
> > by CRA wether foreclosed or not. They also
> ignore
> > the fact that most reckless and damaging
> subprime
> > lending occurred between 2003 and 2007, long
> after
> > CRA’s passage in 1977.
> >
> > But you watch Fox News so you would not know
> this.
>
> So, what news outlet told people like you that
> Bush deregulated the housing industry?
>
> That myth is told over and over and over again.
> And, unlike the CRA story, has no basis in fact
> whatsoever.
>
> Also, given the fact that you have been known to
> fabricate "facts" on this board in the past,
> please provide a link to the aforementioned study.
> A simple google search of University of Nebraska
> forclosure study CRA yielded no such study.

Listen you fucktard, I have made extremely few mistakes for all the info I have posted here. Yet you harp on 1 minor mistake - ok I was off by about 5%, a long time ago. This does not warrant you saying "I have been known to fabricate the facts" charge by you - you who change your name every 10 minutes to escape from your past.

Here is the study, published by the Federal Reserve on Minneapolis. Do they meet your reqirement? Or would you prefer a study done by the Heritage Institute, Dept of Statistics?

Here is what it says in a nutshell. I doubt you will read the whole thing, or even a few sentences. Sean Hammity and Rush Limbaugh told you the CRA was to blame and that is good enough for you.

The first point is a matter of timing. The current crisis is rooted in the poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007. If the CRA did indeed spur the recent expansion of the subprime mortgage market and subsequent turmoil, it would be reasonable to assume that some change in the enforcement regime in 2004 or 2005 triggered a relaxation of underwriting standards by CRA-covered lenders for loans originated in the past few years. However, the CRA rules and enforcement process have not changed substantively since 1995.2/ This fact weakens the potential link between the CRA and the current mortgage crisis.
Our second point is a matter of the originating entity. When considering the potential role of the CRA in the current mortgage crisis, it is important to account for the originating party. In particular, independent nonbank lenders, such as mortgage and finance companies and credit unions, originate a substantial share of subprime mortgages, but they are not subject to CRA regulation and, hence, are not directly influenced by CRA obligations. (We explore subprime mortgage originations in further detail below.)...

In analyzing the available data, we consider two distinct metrics of lending activity: loan origination activity and loan performance. With respect to the first question posed above concerning loan originations, we determine which types of lending institutions made higher-priced loans, to whom those loans were made, and in what types of neighborhoods the loans were extended.3/ This analysis therefore depicts the fraction of subprime mortgage lending that could be related to the CRA.
Using loan origination data obtained pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), we find that in 2005 and 2006, independent nonbank institutions—institutions not covered by the CRA—accounted for about half of all subprime originations. (See Table 1.) Also, about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, populations not targeted by the CRA. (See Table 2.) In addition, independent nonbank institutions originated nearly half of the higher-priced loans extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas (share derived from Table 2).
In total, of all the higher-priced loans, only 6 percent were extended by CRA-regulated lenders (and their affiliates) to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA assessment areas, which are the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. The small share of subprime lending in 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have played a substantial role in the subprime crisis.
To the extent that banking institutions chose not to include their affiliates' lending in their CRA examinations, the 6 percent share overstates the volume of higher-priced, lower-income lending that CRA examiners would have counted.4/ It is possible, however, the examiners might have considered at least some of the lower-income lending outside of CRA assessment areas if institutions asked that it be considered in their CRA performance evaluations. No data are available to assess this possibility; however, the majority of the higher-priced loans made outside of assessment areas were to middle- or higher-income borrowers. In our view, this suggests it is unlikely that the CRA was a motivating factor for such higher-priced lending. Rather, it is likely that higher-priced lending was primarily motivated by its apparent profitability.
It is also possible that the remaining share of higher-priced, lower-income lending may be indirectly attributable to the CRA due to the incentives under the CRA investment test. Specifically, examiners may have given banks "CRA credit" for their purchases of lower-income loans or mortgage-backed securities containing loans to lower-income populations, which could subsequently affect the supply of mortgage credit.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136


Now show me somehow who has facts saying the CRA was responcible.... Please.

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2011 09:27AM by Radiophile.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Listen you fucktard, I have made extremely few
> mistakes for all the info I have posted here. Yet
> you harp on 1 minor mistake - ok I was off by
> about 5%, a long time ago. This does not warrant
> you saying "I have been known to fabricate the
> facts" charge by you - you who change your name
> every 10 minutes to escape from your past.


At least you are beginning to acknowledge you have, indeed, made up your own set of facts. I don't think it was malicious lying, just ignorant repetition of what you have been programmed to believe.


> Here is the study, published by the Federal
> Reserve on Minneapolis. Do they meet your
> reqirement? Or would you prefer a study done by
> the Heritage Institute, Dept of Statistics?

Well, considering you started out with a study purportedly done by the University of Nebraska and now you are throwing out some other study, you can see why the label of fabricator is appropriately applied to you.

> Here is what it says in a nutshell. I doubt you
> will read the whole thing, or even a few
> sentences. Sean Hammity and Rush Limbaugh told you
> the CRA was to blame and that is good enough for
> you.

Actually, unlike you, I can think independantly. I don't need someone else to spoon feed me my very own set of facts. Where's that University of Nebraska study again?

> The first point is a matter of timing. The current
> crisis is rooted in the poor performance of
> mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007. If the
> CRA did indeed spur the recent expansion of the
> subprime mortgage market and subsequent turmoil,
> it would be reasonable to assume that some change
> in the enforcement regime in 2004 or 2005
> triggered a relaxation of underwriting standards
> by CRA-covered lenders for loans originated in the
> past few years. However, the CRA rules and
> enforcement process have not changed substantively
> since 1995.2/ This fact weakens the potential link
> between the CRA and the current mortgage crisis.
> Our second point is a matter of the originating
> entity. When considering the potential role of the
> CRA in the current mortgage crisis, it is
> important to account for the originating party. In
> particular, independent nonbank lenders, such as
> mortgage and finance companies and credit unions,
> originate a substantial share of subprime
> mortgages, but they are not subject to CRA
> regulation and, hence, are not directly influenced
> by CRA obligations. (We explore subprime mortgage
> originations in further detail below.)...
>
> In analyzing the available data, we consider two
> distinct metrics of lending activity: loan
> origination activity and loan performance. With
> respect to the first question posed above
> concerning loan originations, we determine which
> types of lending institutions made higher-priced
> loans, to whom those loans were made, and in what
> types of neighborhoods the loans were extended.3/
> This analysis therefore depicts the fraction of
> subprime mortgage lending that could be related to
> the CRA.
> Using loan origination data obtained pursuant to
> the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), we find
> that in 2005 and 2006, independent nonbank
> institutions—institutions not covered by the
> CRA—accounted for about half of all subprime
> originations. (See Table 1.) Also, about 60
> percent of higher-priced loan originations went to
> middle- or higher-income borrowers or
> neighborhoods, populations not targeted by the
> CRA. (See Table 2.) In addition, independent
> nonbank institutions originated nearly half of the
> higher-priced loans extended to lower-income
> borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas
> (share derived from Table 2).
> In total, of all the higher-priced loans, only 6
> percent were extended by CRA-regulated lenders
> (and their affiliates) to either lower-income
> borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA
> assessment areas, which are the local geographies
> that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation
> purposes. The small share of subprime lending in
> 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA
> suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have
> played a substantial role in the subprime crisis.
> To the extent that banking institutions chose not
> to include their affiliates' lending in their CRA
> examinations, the 6 percent share overstates the
> volume of higher-priced, lower-income lending that
> CRA examiners would have counted.4/ It is
> possible, however, the examiners might have
> considered at least some of the lower-income
> lending outside of CRA assessment areas if
> institutions asked that it be considered in their
> CRA performance evaluations. No data are available
> to assess this possibility; however, the majority
> of the higher-priced loans made outside of
> assessment areas were to middle- or higher-income
> borrowers. In our view, this suggests it is
> unlikely that the CRA was a motivating factor for
> such higher-priced lending. Rather, it is likely
> that higher-priced lending was primarily motivated
> by its apparent profitability.
> It is also possible that the remaining share of
> higher-priced, lower-income lending may be
> indirectly attributable to the CRA due to the
> incentives under the CRA investment test.
> Specifically, examiners may have given banks "CRA
> credit" for their purchases of lower-income loans
> or mortgage-backed securities containing loans to
> lower-income populations, which could subsequently
> affect the supply of mortgage credit.
>
> http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/
> pub_display.cfm?id=4136

Excellent job of the cut and paste. Outstanding.

> Now show me somehow who has facts saying the CRA
> was responcible.... Please.

Please point to a statement I made that would require me to defend the notion that the CRA contributed to the mortgage crisis.

NotFamilyValues? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arnold didn't run on family values? WTF are you
> talking about? When are Republicans going to
> learn the internet is here now and they can't make
> shit up any more.
>
> The first words out his mouth in his election
> speech were it's all about Maria. Why don't you
> count how many times he kisses her during his
> election speeches.
>
> Just another Republican hypocrite as usual.


Running on a family values platform and saying you love your wife are two different things entirely. John Edwards said he loved his wife. How'd that work out for him?

When will Democrats learn that simply writing words down doesn't make them true?

Who said the following:
"Our nation was built on the values of hard work, equal opportunity, thrift, and strong families. Americans believe in the importance of community, responsibility, and, most of all, family. We need to strengthen this institution that--for most of us-- is the central work of our lives and the foundation of our own and our children’s success. The first financial cushion we need is a stable family, and the first lessons we learn about responsibility are learned in our homes."

Sean Hammity and Rush Limbaugh told you the CRA was to blame and that is good enough for you.

Gald to see people telling the facts. Rush... what a complete joke.

LMOA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sean Hammity and Rush Limbaugh told you the CRA
> was to blame and that is good enough for you.
>
> Gald to see people telling the facts. Rush...
> what a complete joke.

Quote a statement supporting your assertion ot stfu.

btw, it is lmao not lmoa

heat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Running on a family values platform and saying you
> love your wife are two different things entirely.


Since when?

WTF? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> heat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Running on a family values platform and saying
> you
> > love your wife are two different things
> entirely.
>
>
> Since when?


Since most people with half a brain cell realized the difference. Was Bill Clinton a family values candidate? Al Gore (remember the mega make out session)? John Edwards?

You can stop posting at any time. No need to further prove your stupidity.

You are obviously divorced. Let me update you on family values. We'll start with the top two:

1) Loving your wife and not cheating on her.
2) Taking care of your kids.

WTF? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are obviously divorced. Let me update you on
> family values. We'll start with the top two:
>
> 1) Loving your wife and not cheating on her.
> 2) Taking care of your kids.

Way to make a stretch there. Please tell me that someone with your lack of intelligence was not given the opportunity to procreate.

I want a good laugh. What are your family values?

WTF? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I want a good laugh. What are your family values?


Are you seriously this moronic, or just trolling?

My family values are boning WTF?'s mom and sister both on the same day......

heat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTF? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I want a good laugh. What are your family
> values?
>
>
> Are you seriously this moronic, or just trolling?

That's what I thought. You have no clue about family values.

WTF? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> heat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WTF? Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I want a good laugh. What are your family
> > values?
> >
> >
> > Are you seriously this moronic, or just
> trolling?
>
> That's what I thought. You have no clue about
> family values.

Your statements here have demonstrated the validity of that assertion.

heat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Your statements here have demonstrated the
> validity of that assertion.

Now answer the question you have been avoiding. What are your family values?

WTF? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> heat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Your statements here have demonstrated the
> > validity of that assertion.
>
> Now answer the question you have been avoiding.
> What are your family values?

My family values are irrelavant to the "family values" platform. YOUR family values are irrelevant to the "family values" platform.

Now answer this question - why are you so interested in my personal life?

I hate the whole family values bit - and when politicians start pontificating about what those values are or should be, I generally abhor them. Nevermind that those pontificating the loudest are usually the biggest transgressors (closet gays, drug users, womanizers, etc).

I think politicians should not worry about family values at all and focus more on keeping this country safe, economically strong, and helping the common person as needed.

Of course the religious right which signifies a large voting bloc must be pandered to, I am not blinded by the fact, just wish it didn't occur.

Petie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> At least you are beginning to acknowledge you

>
>
> > Here is the study, published by the Federal
> > Reserve on Minneapolis. Do they meet your
> > reqirement? Or would you prefer a study done by
> > the Heritage Institute, Dept of Statistics?
>
> Well, considering you started out with a study
> purportedly done by the University of Nebraska and
> now you are throwing out some other study, you can
> see why the label of fabricator is appropriately
> applied to you.

People who went to grad school or college would know that the pure research many times is done at the university level. The Univ of Nebraska crunched the numbers but it appears they go uncredited in the report. Typing in google "was CRA responsible for the mortgage crisis?" would have produced the study.
>
> > Here is what it says in a nutshell. I doubt you
> > will read the whole thing, or even a few
> > sentences. Sean Hammity and Rush Limbaugh told
> you
> > the CRA was to blame and that is good enough
> for
> > you.
>
> Actually, unlike you, I can think independantly.
> I don't need someone else to spoon feed me my very
> own set of facts. Where's that University of
> Nebraska study again?

You think independently wrong. See the numbers above.

> > pub_display.cfm?id=4136
>
> Excellent job of the cut and paste. Outstanding.
>

If you are complimenting me on my ability to find the pertinent facts to dispute your notion that the CRA had a gun to bankers heads forcing them to make loans, then thank you.

> > Now show me somehow who has facts saying the
> CRA
> > was responcible.... Please.
>
> Please point to a statement I made that would
> require me to defend the notion that the CRA
> contributed to the mortgage crisis.


you said "I made". Your are an anonymous poster so I can not point directly to things you say because you do not stand behind your words. I am merely referring to what has been said here before by other anonymous and not anonymous posters.

The point is there is Prime loans and sub prime loans. If you are prime, then just about any banker or non bank entity would loan you money. They would be a fool not. If you are sub prime, then it gets trickier. The CRA did not force banks to make sub prime loans, as many believe is the case.

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People who went to grad school or college would
> know that the pure research many times is done at
> the university level. The Univ of Nebraska
> crunched the numbers but it appears they go
> uncredited in the report. Typing in google "was
> CRA responsible for the mortgage crisis?" would
> have produced the study.

But it doesn't produce a single study done by the University of Nebraska. Once again, you rely on making up facts but once you are called on it, you have to weasel your way out of it. I have a better way for you. Do your own research and stop relying on BS. At the very least, don't spread the BS.


> > > Here is what it says in a nutshell. I doubt
> you
> > > will read the whole thing, or even a few
> > > sentences. Sean Hammity and Rush Limbaugh
> told
> > you
> > > the CRA was to blame and that is good enough
> > for
> > > you.
> >
> > Actually, unlike you, I can think independantly.
>
> > I don't need someone else to spoon feed me my
> very
> > own set of facts. Where's that University of
> > Nebraska study again?
>
> You think independently wrong. See the numbers
> above.
>
> > > pub_display.cfm?id=4136
> >
> > Excellent job of the cut and paste.
> Outstanding.
> >
>
> If you are complimenting me on my ability to find
> the pertinent facts to dispute your notion that
> the CRA had a gun to bankers heads forcing them to
> make loans, then thank you.

Again, not "my" notion. Plus, if you had the ability to find it, you wouldn't have relied on a nonexistant University of Nebraska study.

> > > Now show me somehow who has facts saying the
> > CRA
> > > was responcible.... Please.
> >
> > Please point to a statement I made that would
> > require me to defend the notion that the CRA
> > contributed to the mortgage crisis.
>
>
> you said "I made". Your are an anonymous poster so
> I can not point directly to things you say because
> you do not stand behind your words. I am merely
> referring to what has been said here before by
> other anonymous and not anonymous posters.
>
> The point is there is Prime loans and sub prime
> loans. If you are prime, then just about any
> banker or non bank entity would loan you money.
> They would be a fool not. If you are sub prime,
> then it gets trickier. The CRA did not force banks
> to make sub prime loans, as many believe is the
> case.

Point is you make up shit and spread it like gospel. You have now been called on it multiple time. Considering the words you write are worthless, you may want to consider the anonymous/unregistered route because you certainly can't stand behind them.

Radiophile I am surprised you are falling for this ad hominem gambit that detracts from your post...you'll go nowhere trying to defend yourself all he'll keep replying with is 'yes you are'...'no I'm not...yes you are...no I'm not.' It doesn't go anywhere - say your piece and be done w it, don't fall for the personal attack. Tis tempting to defend yourself but like I said...goes nowhere. Most people tend to parrot their beliefs/thoughts on here and never back anything up, so don't feel you have to just because you got called out on it. This is FFXU not JAMA.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2011 01:12PM by Britdrnva~.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile I am surprised you are falling for this
> ad hominem gambit that detracts from your
> post...you'll go nowhere trying to defend yourself
> all he'll keep replying with is 'yes you
> are'...'no I'm not...yes you are...no I'm not.'
> It doesn't go anywhere - say your piece and be
> done w it, don't fall for the personal attack.
> Tis tempting to defend yourself but like I
> said...goes nowhere. Most people tend to parrot
> their beliefs/thoughts on here and never back
> anything up, so don't feel you have to just
> because you got called out on it. This is FFXU
> not JAMA.

Thanks doc. No matter how many times I defend myself with facts and my words, and even admit to an occassional mistake, an anonymous poster accuses me of spreading falsehoods without presenting any facts. It gets in my crawl. But I guess that is what "conservatives" do. They make shit up (take that anonymous poster).

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

Just once I'd like to have an intelligent conversation with a Republican where they don't run to kid like behavior. Even more annoying is the Republican drawing pictures and making of kiddie type names.

Group up Republicans and if a person is black it's doesn't mean they were born in Kenya.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks doc. No matter how many times I defend
> myself with facts and my words, and even admit to
> an occassional mistake, an anonymous poster
> accuses me of spreading falsehoods without
> presenting any facts.

I presented the fact that there is no University of Nebraska study. You never presented a fact indicating there was one.

> It gets in my crawl. But I
> guess that is what "conservatives" do. They make
> shit up (take that anonymous poster).

Says the guy who just got called on making up a study done by the University of Nebraska.

Here is another of your BS "facts":

"Texas receives more in Fed $ then they pay to the Feds. If they want to leave the union, let them!"

Still stand by that lie?

Once Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just once I'd like to have an intelligent
> conversation with a Republican where they don't
> run to kid like behavior. Even more annoying is
> the Republican drawing pictures and making of
> kiddie type names.
>
> Group up Republicans and if a person is black it's
> doesn't mean they were born in Kenya.


"you are a leftist, you are a marxist, you are a socialist, you are a tree hugging liberal. All you do is call people names!" - Chris Plante.

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just once I'd like to have an intelligent
> > conversation with a Republican where they don't
> > run to kid like behavior. Even more annoying
> is
> > the Republican drawing pictures and making of
> > kiddie type names.
> >
> > Group up Republicans and if a person is black
> it's
> > doesn't mean they were born in Kenya.
>
>
> "you are a leftist, you are a marxist, you are a
> socialist, you are a tree hugging liberal. All you
> do is call people names!" - Chris Plante.

Yes. Having a segment entitled "worst person in America" is so much more mature and cerebral. Just once I'd like to have an intelligent conversation with a Democrat where they don't devolve into total hypacrites or make up "facts."

Petie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes. Having a segment entitled "worst person in
> America" is so much more mature and cerebral.
> Just once I'd like to have an intelligent
> conversation with a Democrat where they don't
> devolve into total hypacrites or make up "facts."

I am completely unfamiliar with the fact that there is a segment called "worst person in America" Petie. But as a republican, I am sure YOU got your "facts" straight.

Enlighten us with your knowledge of the "worst person in America" please

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Petie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Yes. Having a segment entitled "worst person
> in
> > America" is so much more mature and cerebral.
> > Just once I'd like to have an intelligent
> > conversation with a Democrat where they don't
> > devolve into total hypacrites or make up
> "facts."
>
> I am completely unfamiliar with the fact that
> there is a segment called "worst person in
> America" Petie. But as a republican, I am sure YOU
> got your "facts" straight.
>
> Enlighten us with your knowledge of the "worst
> person in America" please


Yep, you got me. I should have written "world" instead of "America." See, admitting mistakes is actually pretty easy. Instead of trying to justify and rationalize your BS, just admit when you are wrong. Try it sometime.

In any event, that sort of ad hominem attack is a perfectly legitimate discussion tactic, right?

Petie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Once Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Just once I'd like to have an intelligent
> > > conversation with a Republican where they
> don't
> > > run to kid like behavior. Even more annoying
> > is
> > > the Republican drawing pictures and making of
> > > kiddie type names.
> > >
> > > Group up Republicans and if a person is black
> > it's
> > > doesn't mean they were born in Kenya.
> >
> >

> Just once I'd like to have an intelligent
> conversation with a Democrat where they don't
> devolve into total hypacrites or make up "facts."

Oh Lord, here's goes the childhood game of repeating what was just said.