Originally posted by: mikelish
how is the 2000 mccain different from 2008 mccain?
Originally posted by: Viditor
Cattlegod, you need to review what has caused the economic problem...
The problem isn't that poor people have homes, it's that the process of acquiring the mortgages became less regulated. That means that there were fewer checks and documentations about the people who were engaging in these mortgages.
Remember that the guy writing the loan only got paid a commission when the loan was written, and then his company would immediately sell the loan off to a bank or other company. Many of those loans were written for 100% of the cost of the house because it was assumed that the value of the property would always go upwards.
The problem is that when housing prices dropped a little, people found that they owed more than the house was worth...so they walked away from the mortgage (especially when employment got tougher). This wasn't just the poor, it was the middle class to a greater extent who found themselves suddenly overextended.
In addition, many of these loans (at the suggestion of Alan Greenspan) were term variable loans, and the owners were unable to renogtiate a new loan at the end of their 7 years...
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I'm watching a special right now on Fox Business on the recent crash. Obama was a big proponent to the sub-prime pressure lending in the 90s. I don't plan on voting for Obama because of this.
Too bad all of that is a lie.
Every single poster here with banking industry experience, including myself, has come out and exposed that crap as a ridiculous partisan lie a dozen times over, and yet you spoonfed wingnuts keep lapping up and puking out this ridiculous propaganda.
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
What the hell are you talking about? He was an avid supporter of ACORN in the 90s. Additionally, Obama was an attorney for one of the lawsuits against Citi. Besides, the slide started in the 70s with the government pressuring banks to make sub prime loans. Obama supported this path of destruction.
Additionally, a McCain's bill in 2006 to reform the government?s involvement in lending, the Democrats shot down (after the Democrats shot down a previous attempt two years prior to that from the Bush administration). Democrats were taking their eye off the potential problem because the 'middle class' was getting wealthy off of the housing boom.
Bull-fucking-shit.
Yaknow what ACORN has always called subprime lending? Predatory lending. 1They literally did coin that term. And fought lawsuit and lawsuit against the practice of lending to people more than they could afford.
The so-called "subprime" that ACORN did push for were 2relatively modest expansions of Fannie/Freddie and FHA approvals, usually in select neighborhoods and always for borrowers with 3solid documented income. These loans, called "My Community," "Timely Payment Rewards," and "Expanded Approval" perform today just as good as prime loans. IOW they have nothing in common with the so-called "toxic" subprime mortgage loans that caused all this.
That lawsuit that Obama played an incredibly minor role in the 90s was a case of 4DOCUMENTED racial discrimination, where Citi was caught routinely denying black applicants with identical qualifications to white applicants that they were approving. Are you saying you endorse such practices?
And additionally, it wasn't "McCain's bill," it was Hagel's bill. McCain co-sponsored it for all of like 3 days before withdrawing his support. It died in a Republican-dominated Senate committee, and its purpose was not to "reform" Fannie/Freddie but to almost completely deregulate them (in particular, to remove HUD as Fannie/Freddie's regulatory body).
Yaknow, anyone with a computer and internet access could find out the truth of these issues within minutes. The fact that these ridiculous crap lies just keep getting repeated over and over again from the McCain camp just goes to show why that ticket must not be allowed to win. Admittedly, I could be a much bigger fan of the other side, but the nuts fueling the McCain camp will believe and spread any lie that supports their agenda, and that kind of immorality does not deserve any influence in the White House.
1 - Do you have evidence that the coined the term predatory lending?
2 - Relative to what?
3 - What does 'solid documented income' mean? I can document weekly bottle returns, doesn't mean I should get a loan. Too bad banks have to give me a loan because the Dems want everyone in a house.
4 - Who cares? If I don't want to lend someone my money because they have a tattoo or any other reason, I shouldn't have to. It is my god damned money.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
McCain, on the other hand, was a senator when he violated ethics standards in the Keating Five scandal.Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I don't think it matters if he was in the senate or not. He was trying to get people in homes that shouldn't be. Granted, it is a noble effort, but it is not good business.
And he's fought for deregulation for his entire 26 year career in the senate. Not a noble effort.
Originally posted by: Xellos2099
He was a lawyer with Acorn at the time and he tried suing Citibank for racial discrimination.
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, since you know so much about this stuff why don't you write an article? No one has so far, and I have nothing to show to the Republicans who believe those Youtube videos.
I don't understand the lack of debunking of the right wing revisionism. Why am I having to learn this stuff on ATPN?
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, since you know so much about this stuff why don't you write an article? No one has so far, and I have nothing to show to the Republicans who believe those Youtube videos.
I don't understand the lack of debunking of the right wing revisionism. Why am I having to learn this stuff on ATPN?
Funny - you've already chosen which side to "believe", yet you can't even explain why.
CLASSIC!
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, since you know so much about this stuff why don't you write an article? No one has so far, and I have nothing to show to the Republicans who believe those Youtube videos.
I don't understand the lack of debunking of the right wing revisionism. Why am I having to learn this stuff on ATPN?
Funny - you've already chosen which side to "believe", yet you can't even explain why.
CLASSIC!
I chose NOT to believe a clearly biased right wing video with an extreme agenda, especially since it was all about Frannie and Freddie. I'd do the same if there was a left wing video blaming Ronald Reagan.
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, since you know so much about this stuff why don't you write an article? No one has so far, and I have nothing to show to the Republicans who believe those Youtube videos.
I don't understand the lack of debunking of the right wing revisionism. Why am I having to learn this stuff on ATPN?
Funny - you've already chosen which side to "believe", yet you can't even explain why.
CLASSIC!
I chose NOT to believe a clearly biased right wing video with an extreme agenda, especially since it was all about Frannie and Freddie. I'd do the same if there was a left wing video blaming Ronald Reagan.
How about Pelosi pinning it squarely on Bush? I missed your post on that one.
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Not me. The debates have made me like McCain a lot less, though.
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, since you know so much about this stuff why don't you write an article? No one has so far, and I have nothing to show to the Republicans who believe those Youtube videos.
I don't understand the lack of debunking of the right wing revisionism. Why am I having to learn this stuff on ATPN?
Funny - you've already chosen which side to "believe", yet you can't even explain why.
CLASSIC!
I chose NOT to believe a clearly biased right wing video with an extreme agenda, especially since it was all about Frannie and Freddie. I'd do the same if there was a left wing video blaming Ronald Reagan.
How about Pelosi pinning it squarely on Bush? I missed your post on that one.
I have no problem with GWB doing what he does best, being blamed.
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, since you know so much about this stuff why don't you write an article? No one has so far, and I have nothing to show to the Republicans who believe those Youtube videos.
I don't understand the lack of debunking of the right wing revisionism. Why am I having to learn this stuff on ATPN?
Funny - you've already chosen which side to "believe", yet you can't even explain why.
CLASSIC!
I chose NOT to believe a clearly biased right wing video with an extreme agenda, especially since it was all about Frannie and Freddie. I'd do the same if there was a left wing video blaming Ronald Reagan.
How about Pelosi pinning it squarely on Bush? I missed your post on that one.
I have no problem with GWB doing what he does best, being blamed.
Well, blaming him for this won't get you out of the hole, sorry. So while it might be fun to do when you don't even understand your own opinions, it's pretty unproductive.