Democraps = Depression

The economy isn't getting any better for the average citizen it is getting worse. The only ones
prospering from the incentives are the rich and the Democraps. Whats worse is the burden of paying for all this will be on the next generations of our children to pay back. All you idiots
thinking things are better with Obama better take a good hard look.

No votes yet

All they would have had to do is remember the Carter presidency. But the vast majority of this new group wasn't even alive then, while the rest are clueless as to how socialism works, or what it even is.

Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."

Saul Alinski -rules for radicals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

Also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward-Piven_Strategy

The goal is to overload the system in order to cause catastrophic systemic failures...

So long as the middleclass still see the system as functioning in their intrests they will not be swayed to support the radical changes the left wants...

Therefore, their logic dictates that said system must be the the only obstacle in thier path to utopia...and thus it must be destroyed before a new system can be put in place....

They want a getto from sea to shining sea.....better to rule in hell...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

It is going to take President Obama and the Democratic Party a LONG time to dig us out of Bush's DEEP DOO-DOO.

Well if Covey supporters are for something I guess that's more than enough reason for me to be against it.

God told me to.

MikeyA

Is right twice a day.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Is right twice a day but Bush and Cheney were never right. Not ONCE in eight years did they do anything right.

They made tons of money-and didn't give you any of it.

Your remark makes no sense. Well like they say I guess I have to consider the source.

I wouldn't expect it to make sense to you.

Opal is insane. Followers of her are either insane or stupid.

Thus, when an Opal follower tells me one thing if I believe the other I am making the sane or smart choice.

See there it is for everyone to follow quite easily... except you.

MikeyA

The ones who, with Bush and Cheney, started the Great Depression of 2007. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-tenenbaum/rise-of-the-republicants_b...

Huff and Puff post?

No wonder you are so screwed up...sheesh....

Bush 500 billion deficeit =bad....

Obama 1.5 trillion deficeit= good...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Well again, like MSNBC and Fox News, you have to consider the source on this.

Bush and Cheney deserve a lot of blame on this but the fact remains that Congress under Pelosi and Reid has been an abject disaster. The last time I checked, Congress controls the purse strings. And we all know how fiscally responsible Congress is...ha..ha...ha...ha...right.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Hey sarge, if you're smart enough to use Google, and that's likely debatable, look up CRA, the Community Reinvestment Act.
After you do some reading, then come back and try and tell me it was Bush and the Republicans fault.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

The CRA excuse is CRAP. Doing some reading yourself. The CRA only applies to FDIC member banks. By far, the large majority of subprime loans were made by non-CRA lenders.

Pink Slip

Right pink...and the sun has nothing to do with growing crops....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Facts. You can look it up yourself.

Pink Slip

Pink...if a picture is worth a thousand words...a video is worth a million...here's four..

Loaning money to people who couldnt pay it back...stupid then...stupid now...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

"She cited a Federal Reserve Board analysis which found that, in 2006, CRA-covered banks operating in CRA-targeted neighborhoods accounted for just six percent of the risky, high-cost loans largely responsible for the housing crisis." (source)

**But your spliced "Naked Emperor News" youtube's were VERY damning evidence. Much more credible than a Federal Reserve Board analysis....

Pink Slip

Now your going to stick up for the federal reserve?

LMAO...oh how rich...

Why no comment on the dems own words?

"affordable housing" was a huge scam...perpetrated upon the American home owner...

Oduma was even a lawyer for ACORN when they sued citigroup using CRA as a basis for the case...

What caused the meltdown was the sub-primes...the crash of mortgage backed securities.....and sub-primes were nothing other than affirmative action mortgages...worthless paper...

And that directly stole money right out of all of our homes...

Freddie had my home value lowered by HALF....I had to fight back with a re-appraisal..

And if CRA wasnt bad enough...Barney Frank is trying to EXPAND IT!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Dem...

All Democrat roads lead to ACORN and...

Barack Hussien Oduma...hmmm hmmm hmmm...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

No, I'd like to get rid of the Federal Reserve. But until you can point me to reputable research showing that CRA loans accounted for more than 6% of the sub-prime loans that caused the crash, you have little ground to stand upon.

Pink Slip

Reputable?

Like from the Daily Kos or democrat underground?

Nope...the CRA defense comes from the left and it's allies....and you parrot it to the end...defending your 1% allies.....it's a CYA move and you eat it up like a dog in the catbox......

Even Barney Frank wants CRA EXPANDED...

The ONLY reason the subprime market exists is due to the federal Govt...

-------------------------------------------

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic:

So why is Congress thinking about expanding it?
Did the Community Reinvestment Act—the 1977 federal law pressing banks to lend to low- and moderate-income borrowers—fuel toxic lending and thus play a significant role in causing the financial meltdown? “CRA was not the cause of the crisis,” Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan maintained this past August. Though he had little quantitative detail about the performance of CRA-related loans, Dugan claimed that they had performed better than loans made by lenders not subject to the CRA. Further, he contended, borrowers of CRA loans had defaulted at much lower rates than borrowers of subprime mortgages. Other defenders of the act assert that almost all CRA loans originated at “prime” interest rates, rather than the higher rates that lenders offered risky “subprime” borrowers. And they add that the mortgages made under CRA were almost entirely fixed-rate, not the notorious adjustable-rate mortgages with quick rate resets and high payment shock that led so many borrowers to default.

The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures.

To begin with, the CRA defenders’ claim that CRA lending mostly wasn’t subprime is highly misleading. It would be more accurate to say that 90 percent of CRA lending wasn’t classified as subprime. CRA lenders, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—the two government-sponsored entities that bought loans from lenders, enabling them to make more loans—commonly classified CRA loans as “subprime” only if they contained such features as high fees, high rates, or low initial payments with adjustable interest rates. But approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so.

Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today” loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses.

Whatever the precise magnitude of the CRA’s role, there is no question that as the government pursued affordable-housing goals—with the CRA providing approximately half of Fannie’s and Freddie’s affordable-housing purchases—trillions of dollars in high-risk lending flooded the real-estate market, with disastrous consequences. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of conventional home-purchase mortgages made with the borrower putting 5 percent or less down more than tripled, from 8 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 2007. Adding to the default risk: of these loans with 5 percent or less down, the average down payment declined from 5 percent to 3 percent of the loan’s value.

As for Fannie and Freddie, most of the loans with 5 percent or less down that they had acquired by 2005 had down payments of 3 percent or even no down payment at all. From 1992 to 2007, the two entities acquired over $3.1 trillion in low-down-payment or credit-impaired loans and private securities backed by credit-impaired loans—and these are performing horribly: the delinquency rate on Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining $1.1 trillion in such high-risk loans is 15.5 percent as of this past June 30, about 6.5 times the rate on the entities’ traditionally underwritten loans. All this risky lending, of course, drove the nation’s homeownership rate up and inflated a housing-price bubble.

Taxpayers deserve to know why not one regulator had the common sense to track the performance of CRA loans. They also deserve to know why the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and other regulators appear to have no idea how trillions of dollars in CRA loans are performing now. But above all, they deserve to know that the damage done by the CRA won’t happen again. Incredibly, the House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would broaden the scope of the CRA. Before it takes any action on HR 1479—which would expand the CRA’s mandates from banks to bank subsidiaries, mortgage bankers, credit unions, insurance companies, and other nonbank financial institutions—the committee should demand that regulators request detailed CRA performance data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as from the four banks that have announced 94 percent of the nation’s $6 trillion in CRA commitments: Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. These six institutions should be able to provide performance information for an estimated 70 percent of outstanding CRA loans.

The pain and hardship that CRA has likely spawned are immeasurable. What is measurable, though, is exactly how the trillions in past CRA loans are performing and what we can learn from this debacle.

Edward Pinto, a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry, was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s.

---------------------------------------

You know who made MILLIONS running Freddie and fannie into the ground?

Rahm Emanual......

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Written by a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry, eh? Very telling. He simply says if we change the definition of sub-prime, then a lot more of these type loans "could have" defaulted. But he's not sure how much.

(hint hint, it's only six per cent....)

Pink Slip

They ALLsuck ! Only out for themselves! It will all come tumbling down on them. I have a bottle to drink on that day !

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.