80k-100k Protest in North Carolina

[CrackRabbit]

Fine. All I ask is that you carry that same philosophy throughout government interaction. We've already seen the effect of relying on someone's word that they are qualified for the mortgage they want, but if that's the direction we must go, fine. If I want to buy a gun, I should have the right to do so on my word that I am legally allowed to own a gun and that I am who I say I am. No ID, no waiting period, just mail me a packet to fill out, and if that packet bounces, keep assuming I am a legal buyer unless you somehow serendipitously learn otherwise - in which case, consider me a fluke that could never happen twice. If I want to sign up for welfare, just take my word that I am who I am, that I qualify for welfare, that I'm not collecting anywhere else under any other name. If I want a government loan, grant it, as long as I say I qualify for that particular program. To do otherwise would be un-American by your own definition.

And since elections are so close sometimes that it would be an advantage to get a few less of your opponents supporters to vote, ignore the fact that it would also be an advantage to get a few more of your supporters to vote, regardless of qualification or whether they've voted already.

I don't have a problem with the idea of requiring identification to vote,
it's the fact that the political party that is backing these measures want to use them as a bludgeon to prevent or make it onerous for people who need to get IDs that are likely to vote against them.

There was an article I read recently where women in Texas who changed their names after getting married were now required to file an onerous amount of paperwork to prove who they were.
We're talking people that had been married for decades, not hitched by the JP yesterday.
There isn't any reason for it other than to try and prevent them from voting.

 

[werepossum]

I don't have a problem with the idea of requiring identification to vote,
it's the fact that the political party that is backing these measures want to use them as a bludgeon to prevent or make it onerous for people who need to get IDs that are likely to vote against them.

There was an article I read recently where women in Texas who changed their names after getting married were now required to file an onerous amount of paperwork to prove who they were.
We're talking people that had been married for decades, not hitched by the JP yesterday.
There isn't any reason for it other than to try and prevent them from voting.

That makes no sense. Married women overwhelmingly vote Republican; either the GOP's motivations are not political or they would be highly counter-productive.

 

[zinfamous]

Source

Video report

Really surprised there is no thread on this, seems to be something that should be front page news.

I just don't understand how people can support such policies. What's occurring is such a leap backwards to the worst policies of the past. This is the result of Political corruption, both Ideologically and through the influence of $. Is this really the world you want your children to inherit?

Update

More links:

Bill Moyers

HuffPo

Washington Times

You wanna know what happened to NC in the last 3 or 4 years?

Here's the chief wise and beautiful woman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Pope

 

[berzerker60]

We've already seen the effect of relying on someone's word that they are qualified for the mortgage they want

You make it sounds like it was the banks that were fooled by the sub-prime mortgage recipients instead of the exact opposite.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't have a problem with the idea of requiring identification to vote,
it's the fact that the political party that is backing these measures want to use them as a bludgeon to prevent or make it onerous for people who need to get IDs that are likely to vote against them.

There was an article I read recently where women in Texas who changed their names after getting married were now required to file an onerous amount of paperwork to prove who they were.
We're talking people that had been married for decades, not hitched by the JP yesterday.
There isn't any reason for it other than to try and prevent them from voting.

nevermind that in the only cases where voter fraud is actually shown to occur--absentee ballots--the Pubs refuse to touch it.

why?

who votes absentee? The elderly and military, primarily.

go figure.

 

[SlickSnake]

You make it sounds like it was the banks that were fooled by the sub-prime mortgage recipients instead of the exact opposite.

Yea, that stood out in his comment to me, too. When in fact, the mortgage banksters were handing out home mortgages like balloons and lollypops even to unqualified people with no jobs and on government welfare checks, just so they could bundle and repackage them as prime investment opportunities. So in those instances it was hardly the borrowers fault for getting a cheap loan they had no hope of being able to repay on the long term.

 

[Incorruptible]

Yea, that stood out in his comment to me, too. When in fact, the mortgage banksters were handing out home mortgages like balloons and lollypops even to unqualified people with no jobs and on government welfare checks, just so they could bundle and repackage them as prime investment opportunities. So in those instances it was hardly the borrowers fault for getting a cheap loan they had no hope of being able to repay on the long term.

The government forced banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them. The blame also lies on the people who took the loans.

 

[bradly1101]

Last I checked we now have more than 14 million illegals in the country, more than enough to change the outcome of elections at all levels.

I don't think there is a problem with illegals registering to vote because of the fear of being deported.

Where were these protesting idiots when measures are put into place that place severe burdens on people who want to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

Voting rights give you the ability to participate in how the government is run. 'Gun rights' (as you interpret the second amendment) give you the ability to own and shoot a gun. Why are they compared? Why does everything have to boil down to gun rights? They probably don't care about that.

 

[bradly1101]

Fine. All I ask is that you carry that same philosophy throughout government interaction. We've already seen the effect of relying on someone's word that they are qualified for the mortgage they want, but if that's the direction we must go, fine. If I want to buy a gun, I should have the right to do so on my word that I am legally allowed to own a gun and that I am who I say I am. No ID, no waiting period, just mail me a packet to fill out, and if that packet bounces, keep assuming I am a legal buyer unless you somehow serendipitously learn otherwise - in which case, consider me a fluke that could never happen twice. If I want to sign up for welfare, just take my word that I am who I am, that I qualify for welfare, that I'm not collecting anywhere else under any other name. If I want a government loan, grant it, as long as I say I qualify for that particular program. To do otherwise would be un-American by your own definition.

Do you think that some people consider some rights to be more important than others? Do you think everyone interprets the 2nd amendment the same way, and therefore may feel differently about that 'right'?

 

[Vic]

The government forced banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them. The blame also lies on the people who took the loans.

OMFG do we really have to debunk this stupid idiotic bullshit for the millionth time?

The government did not force banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them. I know. I was there with a front row center seat. The bank I worked for went under during the mortgage crisis, and I lost my job and was unemployed for several months. Good times!
Rest assured, if the government had made that happen as you describe, I would be the first person telling everyone that. The reason I don't is because that is not what happened.

 

[Incorruptible]

OMFG do we really have to debunk this stupid idiotic bullshit for the millionth time?

The government did not force banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them. I know. I was there with a front row center seat. The bank I worked for went under during the mortgage crisis, and I lost my job and was unemployed for several months. Good times!
Rest assured, if the government had made that happen as you describe, I would be the first person telling everyone that. The reason I don't is because that is not what happened.

Yes they did though. You're a liberal so of course you're going to defend the government and blame the banks.

 

[Vic]

Yes they did though. You're a liberal so of course you're going to defend the government and blame the banks.

 

[SlickSnake]

 

[Vic]

Ok seriously? Did you trolls miss the part where the bank I worked for failed catastrophically? Hundreds of people lost their jobs. I can assure that no one there, from the janitor to the CEO, wanted that.
So if you think I blame the banks for the housing bust.. well, then you're just nuts.

 

[Texashiker]

I know. I was there with a front row center seat. The bank I worked for went under during the mortgage crisis, and I lost my job and was unemployed for several months. Good times!

I am sorry to hear you lost your job during the bank crisis. I have been out of a job before, it is no fun.

Why did the bank you were working for go under?

 

[BUnit1701]

A seat at the table. I thought that was implied in what I said.

And what a valuable seat it is, being told to sit down and shut up about every issue. Boy am I glad I am represented!

 

[BUnit1701]

What are your core beliefs that couldnt be inclusive of blacks and latinos?

Think about this for a second and realize Bush gathered around 40-45% of the hispanic vote in 04.

Thats a good question, what exactly about small government is so repulsive to them?

 

[Genx87]

Thats a good question, what exactly about small government is so repulsive to them?

I dont think in the minority community a smaller less intrusive govt is repulsive. Think they like having the police stop and frisk in NYC? Or how about a big govt going around deporting their firends and family and forcing them under ground? Or the drug war that disproportionally hits minority communities?

So what else could the Republican party be doing that repulses these segments of society?

 

[Vic]

I am sorry to hear you lost your job during the bank crisis. I have been out of a job before, it is no fun.

Why did the bank you were working for go under?

Thanks. We were no longer able to sell the mortgage loans we originated on the secondary market.

 

[WackyDan]

I live here in NC... Would be very surprised that those numbers were even 50% of what they claimed.

While the legislature pulled some batshit crazy shit early in the term, most of the truly stupid got tossed.... Most of these state assembly people are back woods supposedly devote baptists who already are old enough to have one foot in the grave...

As for the political climate... Kay Hagan is not going to get re-elected. The anti Obama sentiment here is significant. She has been trying to unhitch her wagon from him for months and nobody forgot her touring the state with him, or her support for the ACA... I think NC is firmly GOP again after decades... and the mistake of going to Obama on his first term.

 

[CrackRabbit]

That makes no sense. Married women overwhelmingly vote Republican; either the GOP's motivations are not political or they would be highly counter-productive.

They are collateral damage. By in large women tend to vote more liberal than men and attempting to limit any woman's access to vote is likely to be a net gain for them.
In a state that is turning against them slow motion due to their own shortsightedness they are trying to grasp at straws to keep their power.

I will laugh when it happens to, not because I think the Dems will do a better job, but because it was their own moronic hubris that brought the change upon them.

Edit: Here's an article from yesterday detailing an 80 year old woman's struggle to comply with the asinine law that the Texas legislature passed.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...d-tries-to-get-ID-card-so-she-can-5226268.php

 

[SlickSnake]

Ok seriously? Did you trolls miss the part where the bank I worked for failed catastrophically? Hundreds of people lost their jobs. I can assure that no one there, from the janitor to the CEO, wanted that.
So if you think I blame the banks for the housing bust.. well, then you're just nuts.

Did you somehow miss the part where I did the same thing as you, for obvious reasons? I was agreeing with you. Same thing as doing this ^^^^^
You saw what my prior post was, and you didn't dispute it.

This part I now have an issue with, though. Banks pushed through the junk home loans, no question about it. Before you said the government wasn't at fault. The government were also at fault for turning a blind eye to what was going on. Clinton helped to deregulate the banking industry, so fraud, on the banks and the borrowers part, was the inevitable result of that.

 

[SlickSnake]

Thanks. We were no longer able to sell the mortgage loans we originated on the secondary market.

No shit.

 

[Vic]

No shit.

Hey, he asked.

Sorry about the above, I assumed you were agreeing with Incorruptible. My bad. I know it was like 6-7 years ago, but I still get a little emotional on this issue.

 

[Vic]

Yea, that stood out in his comment to me, too. When in fact, the mortgage banksters were handing out home mortgages like balloons and lollypops even to unqualified people with no jobs and on government welfare checks, just so they could bundle and repackage them as prime investment opportunities. So in those instances it was hardly the borrowers fault for getting a cheap loan they had no hope of being able to repay on the long term.

I disagree with this though. Government regulations do require that lenders be consistent with regards to lending policy. Taking 2 similarly qualified applicants, we cannot lend to one and decline the other. We need to come to the same decision for both. For this reason, lenders make it just as hard for underwriters to decline loans as to approve them.
And when subprime investors were buying up every single deal we had and demanding more, we began to run out of legitimate reasons to deny loans, even when we didn't like them.

I'd also like to point out that MHA data shows that roughly half of the borrowers who ended up losing their homes were later determined to be qualified by loss mitigation underwriters using MHA/HAMP criteria (PITIA at 31% or less of gross income at NPV).