U.S. Politics

Page 331 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 4, 2009
340
0
0
VeloCity said:
That's just context of use, Glenn. A hunting rifle can be used to kill people or fight in a war just as easily as it can be used for hunting - isn't that entirely the point of the 2nd Amendment?

That's also the entire point of the UN treaty - that there is no difference between "civilian" weapons and "military" weapons.

But why is the NRA opposing a treaty that doesn't involve domestic gun laws? Because the US is the #1 arms exporter in the world and the NRA makes a **** ton of money off of that trade.
I have seen this statement from you a few times while browsing this thread. Can you link something that shows what the NRA receives for the weapon makers? I would be interest to see what the industry gives them.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
VeloCity said:
That's just context of use, Glenn. A hunting rifle can be used to kill people or fight in a war just as easily as it can be used for hunting - isn't that entirely the point of the 2nd Amendment?

That's also the entire point of the UN treaty - that there is no difference between "civilian" weapons and "military" weapons.

But why is the NRA opposing a treaty that doesn't involve domestic gun laws? Because the US is the #1 arms exporter in the world and the NRA makes a **** ton of money off of that trade.
NRA has already accomplished what no Republican Presidential candidate could do. Defeated Barrhack Hussein Obama. :cool:

"Keep it Kool"
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
http://www.murphy.senate.gov/documents/nrareport2.pdf

Key Findings
• The NRA leadership has worked to develop close ties with firearms industry. In its 2011
report entitled Blood Moneyi
, the Violence Policy Center found that the association has
received millions of dollars from the industry in the past few years alone. Further, the report
found that the NRA’s corporate contributors represent virtually every sector of the firearms
industry, including: manufacturers of handguns, rifles, shotguns, assault weapons, and highcapacity ammunition magazines; gun distributors and dealers; and vendors of ammunition
and other shooting-related products.
• Specifically, the Blood Moneyi
report found that the vast majority of funds - 74 percent -
contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” since 2005 are from members of the
firearms industry and totaled between $14.7 million and $38.9 million.
• The NRA Round-Up program, created by MidwayUSA founder Larry Potterfield, allows
buyers to “round up” their purchase to the nearest dollar, with the difference going to the
NRA. MidwayUSA, a retailer that boasts their sales of “just about everything for shooting,
reloading, gunsmithing and hunting,” has contributed nearly $8 million to the NRA Institute
for Legislative Action National Endowment for the Protection of the Second Amendment
(NRA-ILA) since 1992. Other retailers have followed suit, and the total raised through the
NRA Round-Up Program is now almost $9.3 millionii
.
Basically they get **** tons of money from the gun industry.
 
Jul 4, 2009
340
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
http://www.murphy.senate.gov/documents/nrareport2.pdf


Basically they get **** tons of money from the gun industry.
Hugh not sure if this was in response to my question to Velo or not. But I was also interested as I did some digging as well and have seen low side of 14M to high-sides of 50M+.

Reviewing their income statements from the various articles the estimated yearly income to the NRA is 200M+ with 100M+ per year in membership fees. Simple math is 50M/7 years equals in the range of 7 million a year. 200/7 a year is 3.5% of their income. Not a ton of money as I look at things. If I didn't get a 15% tip I would be angry at my customer

referenced on what I looked up. Simple 990 on income, and 2 articles that matched what was given.

http://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/2007-nra-990.pdf

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-corporate-donors

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html


I don't see the industry money angle it is to small of a percentage of income.

If you think I am missing something let me know. I like to talk.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
It's déjà vu all over again.

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit



Yep, nationalize it. Don't have to even worry about losses when Bernanke will cover it up with freshly printed currency. Brilliant that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story_1.html
The private market did a pretty p!ss poor job of managing things last time. I'm not sure how the government could do worse?
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
The private market did a pretty p!ss poor job of managing things last time. I'm not sure how the government could do worse?
Really?

The Federal Reserve has under Clinton, Bush Jr. and to a lesser degree under the current Obama Administration pushed interest rates to the bottom (Obama can claim not, but that's because this little to no room to drop them farther) The ultra low rates really mean printing money wildly to maintain liquidity in the banking system. This combined with the Sub-prime lending (Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law under President Bill Clinton in 1993) which basically removed lending restrictions on housing mortgages and other lending to those of lower income to allow for the needs of housing of the poor, have lead to the current economic debacle.

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

The Fed contributed to matters under the Laissez-Faire philosophy of Alan Greenspan and now under Ben Bernake by default by pushing down interest rates to their all possible low. That's why your money buys you less because essentially currencies act like any commodity. It looks like rising prices or downsized product. When there is a over supply of money, the value drops, especially since paper money is meant to be back-up back solid assets like gold and silver. If out print the solid assets the value of the currency declines. Oil prices have hovered around $90-$100 a barrel not because of a lack of supply as much as the devalued U.S Dollar.

Back to lending. Restrictions that before were put in place as a result of the economic depression of the 1930s were lifted under CRA. This indeed provided the impetus that lead to much of the Clinton economy. The pent-up demand for housing and other items exploded as those who were locked out suddenly had the means to barrow and obtain a house and loans for cars, etc.

Of course the reason for the restrictions had long faded. Two things happened. The sudden demand for housing prompted unrealistic appreciation of housing and property. I saw it personally as the first home bought on 7 percent mortgage in spring 1994 for $86,000 was worth $120,000 when completed 6 mouths later. The time it took to build the new home double because of the shortage of labour against the sudden surge for demand. I would guess-timate about a quarter of our new neighbors resold their homes within a year either to buy up to houses with even greater potential of appreciation or to pocket the cash. The second impact was this attracted investors with money into the housing market. Buy a home, rent it, and resell it at huge profit, and so on.

Our own home topped out at $140,000, but we stayed seven years, though not without temptation to do the same. We did eventually sell at a 120,000 to lessen our commute and move into a school district that had high marks. We could not have done so without the $34,000 gain.

Many banks jumped into lend short-term to sell them up at profit to the quasi-federal mortgage banks common referred to as Fannie Mae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae) and Freddie Mac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac) and to other large private banks. All things considered, many people over borrowed and the loans went south. The first hint of this was the "mild" down turn just prior to the 2000 election and at this time U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) was gutted of its power, which upon it was about to act, by Congress (both Rs and Ds supporting) with Clinton signing into law the passed Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000.

The debt crisis and the bubble were push down the road until September of 1998 some 45 days before the presidential election when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed under the burden of bad loans which also spill over into the larger private banks. This happened despite both institutions being under the regulation and oversight of Congress (with both the House and Senate which under D control at the time). However, it fell to then President George W. Bush to enact emergency huge bail-outs under Executive Privilege.

Congressman Barney Frank then chaired the House Financial Services Committee which had direct oversight of the both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Financial_Services The bad paper did not suddenly appear and Frank as well Rs opposed the Bush Administration reform called for in 2003.

PBS Frontline aired "The Untouchables" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gsearch.html?x=0&y=0&q=The sub-prime lending crisis in 2013 and it treats neither party nor Frank as kindly as his or other Ds' and Rs' wiki bios do. Unfortunately I can't get the trailer to play or I would provide the link. It explains much of what I have written here as I have barrow from it from memory. It's worth a look.

At the minimum, there has been plenty of Government action and inaction that has lead us directly to what we are living today.

I don't even want to think about.:(
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
President Obama is trying to recreate the Clinton move of 1993 in a limited fashion. Somethings never change, but is there anywhere else to go?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Banks are perhaps the best example of the need for governmental regulation. Right now, we have banks that have become too big to fail. That's not because of the government. That's because of the absence of regulation.

These banks have already cost the taxpayers plenty--while the bankers get fatter.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
MarkvW said:
Banks are perhaps the best example of the need for governmental regulation. Right now, we have banks that have become too big to fail. That's not because of the government. That's because of the absence of regulation.

These banks have already cost the taxpayers plenty--while the bankers get fatter.
WTF? Can you read. They are regulated and have been for long time. Andrew Jackson, circa 1820, ended the first U.S. Federal Bank because it was so corrupt it was spending our money to buy seats in Congress. It wielded power beyond that of the Presidency.

Read. Read. Read. Get out of cyber space, where at best we can only cut and paste. One and two liners cannot address complex issues.

Go to a public library and pick history books written in different time periods that account for the same subject. Learn to think for yourself and take people one at a time. Judge not by the group or the label. Taste what you eat.

The Federal Reserve is the Bank!
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Yeah, but the major Banks have become huge profit taking machines that have manipulated things to a point where the Federal Reserve works for them.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
BillytheKid said:
WTF? Can you read. They are regulated and have been for long time. Andrew Jackson, circa 1820, ended the first U.S. Federal Bank because it was so corrupt it was spending our money to buy seats in Congress. It wielded power beyond that of the Presidency.

Read. Read. Read. Get out of cyber space, where at best we can only cut and paste. One and two liners cannot address complex issues.

Go to a public library and pick history books written in different time periods that account for the same subject. Learn to think for yourself and take people one at a time. Judge not by the group or the label. Taste what you eat.

The Federal Reserve is the Bank!
I can read, but you can't think. The banks are insufficiently regulated.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Yeah, but the major Banks have become huge profit taking machines that have manipulated things to a point where the Federal Reserve works for them.
The banks are floundering. They're not lending. Read the Washing Post link above. Failed policy so point the finger? At best, the banks can only lend so much because the bad loans are still out. Paper chase. There is no choice, but to prop them up with liquidity, other than let then fail, which would result in panic and runs on withdrawals, but the money's never all there. Banks have always invested capital. No doubt they are regulated. Pushing the Banks back into risky lending will work about as well as slamming your brakes on in car on a freeway at 70 mph at rush hour. Brakes regulate speed, but you have to be do so in the agreement with the laws of physics, or the ground will come up and smite thee. It is no different for money. Watch that cliff to the left and rock wall to the right.:eek:
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
MarkvW said:
I can read, but you can't think. The banks are insufficiently regulated.
That's very substantial of you Mark. Your thesis, "The banks are insufficiently regulated." Write an essay as to why? I'll let you off the hook at five paragraphs.
 
BillytheKid said:
That's very substantial of you Mark. Your thesis, "The banks are insufficiently regulated." Write an essay as to why? I'll let you off the hook at five paragraphs.
For the very reason you yourself elucidated before. The entire housing market bubble that caused the latest crises of capitalism has taught us this (or should have). Why was the epicenter of the crisis at Wall Street? Because elsewhere around the globe buying a house requires providing much more strict guarantees for the banks to get a mortgage, which is regulated by the State. Of course there are other problems, but that was one that should have been legislated against: that is the unscrupulous speculating by everyone – the bankers and home owners - in a gamblers economy that was destined to go kaboom! eventually, and this could have been seen coming from a mile away. But while the going was good myopic greed set in and, in the absence of an effective regulatory policy, the rest was a foregone conclusion.

The problem is that America, and not only America, has become transformed by the business leaders and their cronies the politicians into one colossal business concern, where everything is bargained for and everyone gets defrauded. That's the truth. All in the name of the folly of eternal growth.

"Roma quanta fuit, ipsa ruina docet." De Roma, Hildebert de Laverdin, 1116

It's not going to last forever. Read on chap.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
L29205 said:
I have seen this statement from you a few times while browsing this thread. Can you link something that shows what the NRA receives for the weapon makers? I would be interest to see what the industry gives them.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/new-evidence-that-the-nra-might-be-just-another-corporate-front/267244/

The magazine reports that George Kollitides II, CEO of the country's largest gun manufacturer, the Freedom Group, sits on one of the organization's most influential internal leadership bodies, known as the Nominating Committee. Freedom Group is the parent company of such firearms makers as Bushmaster, producer of the wildly popular rifle used in the Newtown massacre, and Remington, one of the oldest names in the arms business. And so it seems the gun industry doesn't merely influence the NRA via its largesse, but that one of its most high-profile executives actually helps steer it from the inside.

While the nine-seat Nominating Committee doesn't call the shots at the NRA, it does more or less get to decide who does. The body picks candidates for the NRA's 76-member board of directors, which in turn oversees the groups staff and more than $200 million budget.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Someone has to win.

Try not to let it get you down. The NRA has already won this one. There will be other political games to be played and who knows what the outcome will be. But for sure there is a winner and a loser. This time the White House got beat up by the rednecks with all the "Moneyi".
 
Jul 4, 2009
340
0
0
VeloCity said:
Thanks for the links. I am not sure if you missed an earlier post to Hugh on the subject as well. But you may want to look back for it. As for the NRA and Freedom group. This is what I found when looking at it as well.

Still, the Freedom Group has ingested so many well-known brands so quickly that some gun owners are uneasy about what it might do next. Two years ago, a Cerberus managing director, George Kollitides, ran for the board of the N.R.A. Despite an endorsement from Remington, and the fact that he was a director of the Freedom Group and Remington, he lost. His campaign didn’t sit well with some gun bloggers, who viewed him as an industry interloper.

Andrew Arulanandam, the N.R.A.’s director for public affairs, declined to speculate about why Mr. Kollitides lost. “It’s a great question to ask our four million members,” he said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/business/how-freedom-group-became-the-gun-industrys-giant.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

While a year and a half old it seems to be an interesting analysis.

Also from Freedom itself on his current role in the NRA. Not for the faint of heart as it is all self promotion.

http://www.freedom-group.com/press.htm

While I don't disagree that there is gun manufacturing money coming into the NRA, but as I addressed earlier at 50M total since 2005 is half of the 100M plus in membership dues they collect per year.

Once again if you would like to add anything feel free.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
rhubroma said:
For the very reason you yourself elucidated before. The entire housing market bubble that caused the latest crises of capitalism has taught us this (or should have). Why was the epicenter of the crisis at Wall Street? Because elsewhere around the globe buying a house requires providing much more strict guarantees for the banks to get a mortgage, which is regulated by the State.
As said...the Sub-prime lending (Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law under President Bill Clinton in 1993) which basically removed lending restrictions on housing mortgages and other lending to those of lower income to allow for the needs of housing of the poor, have lead to the current economic debacle.

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

This act removed much the same restrictions as you impicity allude to having only existed elsewhere. I do disagree with sole blame to Capitalism. I think the deregulation was well intentioned philosophy of the Clinton left, however misguided and possibly aided by the corrupted who sought it's chance at short-term gain. My long post was in response to the statement that government action had no effect on the current economy. The rise of the British Empire was quite the enterprise, but we all got into the game. And the game still goes on.

Taken from the movie "The King's Speech"; Berty to his father: "We're not a family. We are a corporation."

This is nothing knew as the creation of the Knights Templar was financed in way that has been credited to the basis of the modern banking system.

However it can be noted that late in the Roman Empire, Rome to took to minting coin at a high rate, made of less precious metal. They too, faced the debacle of devaluation of currency. Many a times it has happened. I have no time to expand or accredit today.

A thesis statement; History leads to the understanding of economics.

Read it. Read many, but with a grain of salt.

John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" Chapter 5. Solidly grounded historical fiction. The chapter stands on it's own as one of his removed and broad commentaries during the course of the novel. Steinbeck never misses the chance to point out human nature's influence over all human designs. Very powerful insight in my opinion, which it has influence greatly, and so, I never miss the chance to point out that political systems are only as good as the people who run them.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
L29205 said:
Thanks for the links. I am not sure if you missed an earlier post to Hugh on the subject as well. But you may want to look back for it. As for the NRA and Freedom group. This is what I found when looking at it as well.

Still, the Freedom Group has ingested so many well-known brands so quickly that some gun owners are uneasy about what it might do next. Two years ago, a Cerberus managing director, George Kollitides, ran for the board of the N.R.A. Despite an endorsement from Remington, and the fact that he was a director of the Freedom Group and Remington, he lost. His campaign didn’t sit well with some gun bloggers, who viewed him as an industry interloper.

Andrew Arulanandam, the N.R.A.’s director for public affairs, declined to speculate about why Mr. Kollitides lost. “It’s a great question to ask our four million members,” he said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/business/how-freedom-group-became-the-gun-industrys-giant.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

While a year and a half old it seems to be an interesting analysis.

Also from Freedom itself on his current role in the NRA. Not for the faint of heart as it is all self promotion.

http://www.freedom-group.com/press.htm

While I don't disagree that there is gun manufacturing money coming into the NRA, but as I addressed earlier at 50M total since 2005 is half of the 100M plus in membership dues they collect per year.

Once again if you would like to add anything feel free.
And never a mention of the influence of violent entertainment. It was the core of the thesis of the very first research paper I wrote in High School circa 1976. Go to a lager newspaper library in the U.S., if they don't have it digital, they will have it on microfiche, read the discussion and concern for the sudden raise of violent entertainment at the time, circa 1976. Yet the film's of that day would not even begin to satisfy the hunger of action in today's consumer.

You cannot solely blame guns. The raise of the Libertine and self-seekers here has had worst effect possible. Much of Hollywood sides with the left, profits economically from violent entertainment while claiming the moral high ground. "Surely, it is not I Lord."

Let's have vote. If you want to repeal the Second Amendment to the Bill rights, have your Party and The President start the proscess. That is most Democratic.

The NRA are well within their rights.

I know many of your Party who own guns, hunt at certain times of the year, and are good people. The greater concern are those who are isolated amid onslaught of the merchants of perversion. Too many fall to the depths of despair and depression. Start this day with an effort toward those who just need a bit of compassion. We avoid so much that only we can accomplish one to one.
 
BillytheKid said:
As said...the Sub-prime lending (Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law under President Bill Clinton in 1993) which basically removed lending restrictions on housing mortgages and other lending to those of lower income to allow for the needs of housing of the poor, have lead to the current economic debacle.

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

This act removed much the same restrictions as you impicity allude to having only existed elsewhere. I do disagree with sole blame to Capitalism. I think the deregulation was well intentioned philosophy of the Clinton left, however misguided and possibly aided by the corrupted who sought it's chance at short-term gain. My long post was in response to the statement that government action had no effect on the current economy. The rise of the British Empire was quite the enterprise, but we all got into the game. And the game still goes on.

Taken from the movie "The King's Speech"; Berty to his father: "We're not a family. We are a corporation."

This is nothing knew as the creation of the Knights Templar was financed in way that has been credited to the basis of the modern banking system.

However it can be noted that late in the Roman Empire, Rome to took to minting coin at a high rate, made of less precious metal. They too, faced the debacle of devaluation of currency. Many a times it has happened. I have no time to expand or accredit today.

A thesis statement; History leads to the understanding of economics.

Read it. Read many, but with a grain of salt.

John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" Chapter 5. Solidly grounded historical fiction. The chapter stands on it's own as one of his removed and broad commentaries during the course of the novel. Steinbeck never misses the chance to point out human nature's influence over all human designs. Very powerful insight in my opinion, which it has influence greatly, and so, I never miss the chance to point out that political systems are only as good as the people who run them.
What happened was that finance created the illusion that the people can live above their means, according to the praxis of creative finance - and that that should have been regulated better. Everything else is just bullsh!t.

That political systems are only as good as the people who run them I don't dispute, but the question that begs to be asked is what system is governing them and consequently what animates the political class? It's all too facile to genuflect before "well intentioned" policy. Though there are more pressing problems, which exclusive economic analysis tend to overlook, such as the madness of nuclear deployment.

As per responsibility: the need for change and responsibility go hand in hand, thus the lack of change is irresponsible.
 
Jul 4, 2009
340
0
0
BillytheKid said:
And never a mention of the influence of violent entertainment. It was the core of the thesis of the very first research paper I wrote in High School circa 1976. Go to a lager newspaper library in the U.S., if they don't have it digital, they will have it on microfiche, read the discussion and concern for the sudden raise of violent entertainment at the time, circa 1976. Yet the film's of that day would not even begin to satisfy the hunger of action in today's consumer.

You cannot solely blame guns. The raise of the Libertine and self-seekers here has had worst effect possible. Much of Hollywood sides with the left, profits economically from violent entertainment while claiming the moral high ground. "Surely, it is not I Lord."

Let's have vote. If you want to repeal the Second Amendment to the Bill rights, have your Party and The President start the proscess. That is most Democratic.

The NRA are well within their rights.

I know many of your Party who own guns, hunt at certain times of the year, and are good people. The greater concern are those who are isolated amid onslaught of the merchants of perversion. Too many fall to the depths of despair and depression. Start this day with an effort toward those who just need a bit of compassion. We avoid so much that only we can accomplish one to one.

To the bold and italic on the first paragraph. Wrote a similar piece in college in the early 80's about the Warner Bothers and the Loony Tunes from 1940 and forward. To sum it up violence viewed de-sensitiveness people to real violence. I really don't have to go to a library as media outlets have failed I have plenty of microfiche at my disposal. The amount of violence in the media has been pretty steady since the 40's when it was used as propaganda. It stopped being cartoon violence sometime in the late 70's to early 80's as technology evolved. But while a good point it is a different conversion.

To the last simply boded part; how do you perceive to know whom I am affiliated with from a party standpoint? I am a hard core independent, I ask and would like answers, try to respect everyone, and am open to a new frame of thought if someone can give me rational reason to change. I will provide info that I think is contradictory but it is always as a way to move a conversion forward. Never as a means to stop the discussion.

Finally, I have no problem putting the 2nd amendment to a vote. If the people want to change it let them.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
BillytheKid said:
Really?

The Federal Reserve has under Clinton, Bush Jr. and to a lesser degree under the current Obama Administration pushed interest rates to the bottom (Obama can claim not, but that's because this little to no room to drop them farther) The ultra low rates really mean printing money wildly to maintain liquidity in the banking system. This combined with the Sub-prime lending (Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law under President Bill Clinton in 1993) which basically removed lending restrictions on housing mortgages and other lending to those of lower income to allow for the needs of housing of the poor, have lead to the current economic debacle.

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

The Fed contributed to matters under the Laissez-Faire philosophy of Alan Greenspan and now under Ben Bernake by default by pushing down interest rates to their all possible low. That's why your money buys you less because essentially currencies act like any commodity. It looks like rising prices or downsized product. When there is a over supply of money, the value drops, especially since paper money is meant to be back-up back solid assets like gold and silver. If out print the solid assets the value of the currency declines. Oil prices have hovered around $90-$100 a barrel not because of a lack of supply as much as the devalued U.S Dollar.

Back to lending. Restrictions that before were put in place as a result of the economic depression of the 1930s were lifted under CRA. This indeed provided the impetus that lead to much of the Clinton economy. The pent-up demand for housing and other items exploded as those who were locked out suddenly had the means to barrow and obtain a house and loans for cars, etc.

Of course the reason for the restrictions had long faded. Two things happened. The sudden demand for housing prompted unrealistic appreciation of housing and property. I saw it personally as the first home bought on 7 percent mortgage in spring 1994 for $86,000 was worth $120,000 when completed 6 mouths later. The time it took to build the new home double because of the shortage of labour against the sudden surge for demand. I would guess-timate about a quarter of our new neighbors resold their homes within a year either to buy up to houses with even greater potential of appreciation or to pocket the cash. The second impact was this attracted investors with money into the housing market. Buy a home, rent it, and resell it at huge profit, and so on.

Our own home topped out at $140,000, but we stayed seven years, though not without temptation to do the same. We did eventually sell at a 120,000 to lessen our commute and move into a school district that had high marks. We could not have done so without the $34,000 gain.

Many banks jumped into lend short-term to sell them up at profit to the quasi-federal mortgage banks common referred to as Fannie Mae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae) and Freddie Mac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac) and to other large private banks. All things considered, many people over borrowed and the loans went south. The first hint of this was the "mild" down turn just prior to the 2000 election and at this time U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) was gutted of its power, which upon it was about to act, by Congress (both Rs and Ds supporting) with Clinton signing into law the passed Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000.

The debt crisis and the bubble were push down the road until September of 1998 some 45 days before the presidential election when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed under the burden of bad loans which also spill over into the larger private banks. This happened despite both institutions being under the regulation and oversight of Congress (with both the House and Senate which under D control at the time). However, it fell to then President George W. Bush to enact emergency huge bail-outs under Executive Privilege.

Congressman Barney Frank then chaired the House Financial Services Committee which had direct oversight of the both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Financial_Services The bad paper did not suddenly appear and Frank as well Rs opposed the Bush Administration reform called for in 2003.

PBS Frontline aired "The Untouchables" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gsearch.html?x=0&y=0&q=The sub-prime lending crisis in 2013 and it treats neither party nor Frank as kindly as his or other Ds' and Rs' wiki bios do. Unfortunately I can't get the trailer to play or I would provide the link. It explains much of what I have written here as I have barrow from it from memory. It's worth a look.

At the minimum, there has been plenty of Government action and inaction that has lead us directly to what we are living today.

I don't even want to think about.:(
Way to quote Wikipedia...

Too bad you take the ignorant, expedient tack on the subject.

Let me let you in on a secret: CRA bound ONLY those banks who were deposit bearing institutions. Most of the truly non-conforming loans were done by banks that had no deposits, thus were COMPLETELY exempt from CRA guidelines. How do I know? It's what I did for a living. It was a PRIVATE MARKET failure more than anything. Sure there are a lots of people like you who suggest that the governmental policy encouraged a lax market for loans, but the reality is that neither the government, nor anyone else held a gun to the heads of the PRIVATE investors who were setting underwriting guidelines for trillions of dollars in loans that were never subject governmental policy or Fannie/Freddie guidelines at all.

Sorry, the biggest failure in that market was the market. Thinking otherwise is for people who don't actually understand what went on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS