America is the best, not just for the economy but for what it stars for. The freedom to live your life the way you see fit and to have the government not get inyour way. Unless an action you are doing is harming me, then i have no say in it. That is true freedom.

#159 its a flaw in capitalism too. for every person or company who wants sustained growth/wealth there are others who will take the immediate payoff and the crash and burn (ie walk away individually wealthy while the shell is left to die).

I agree with you about the pendelum effect, but everytime it swings back to the right, it does a little less than before. We have been steadily moving left for a long time. Slow change is the wear cause no one sees it happening

I agree with you about the pendelum effect, but everytime it swings back to the right, it does a little less than before. We have been steadily moving left for a long time. Slow change is the worst cause no one sees it happening

152- that is neccesary evil we must endure so long as it wasn't fraudulenty obtained.

165 agreed. I take no issue with it. it just is.

164. Author: nir6van6a Date: 05/17/2010 09:35 AM Reply

I agree with you about the pendelum effect, but everytime it swings back to the right, it does a little less than before. We have been steadily moving left for a long time. Slow change is the worst cause no one sees it happening

i dunno. i think the other side would disagree. Reagan set a pretty good tradjectory that is currently under assult. but that was 20+ years ago.

Personally I thought the Bush admin was one of the best I have seen at breaking the fulcrum so the pendulum could not swing as far back.

socially maybe so. today they would actually show elvis from the waist down. I'm not sure if this is good or bad.

checks and balances works (albiet not perfectly)

assuming in 165 you meant 162

You are right about the post number.

I agree bush was horrible for the pendulum because he was really a liberal with social conservatism beliefs. Worst kind of person in my book. I hate the social conservative bull**** (cause that is what it is) and I don't like spending or expansion of government power (which he did in spades)

droomi, Fuzz, and drywall will still vote for Ted Kennedy!

# 159 this is for #12 that was for #38 that was for #87 that was for #99 that was for #144...ad infinitum. Isn't this thread too long as it is? I normally quit reading these things when they get over 50 responses.

Time to end it and start a new thread.

yea. complex things suck

132. Author: FuzzNJ Date: 05/17/2010 09:04 AM Reply

129: Ok, so they are not subject to CRA, so you can’t blame CRA then, can you? You can blame bad business practices from companies who took short term profits over long term stability. That’s a failure of capitalism.

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

It was Janet Reno who was threatening the banks with legal action if they did not implement lending an accordance with the CRA as late as 1999.

Once these people got into these loans during the Clinton administration - loans that they knew they couldn't afford - they were in an almost constant cycle of re-mortgaging to keep above water. Weakening enforcement would have done little to turn back the clock at that point.

Then qith Idi Amin Jr, coming in and offering to pay people's mortgages, that only exacerbated the problem. Now, people go into default as a means of saving money, not as a means ot preventing bankruptcy.

Furthermore, if you're a lender and you've been threatened by the federal government in the past - not to mention you're half in bed with specific politicians - the last thing you're going to do is make waves regardless of who is in power. Because that may change in 8 years. So, you cover your bases, comply with whatever loony regulations may come down the pike, and then use your political connections to get a bail-out when it all goes under.

So yes, the CRA was responsible, and no it wasn't the weakinging of the CRA enforcement that caused all of this.

Dumba**.

^why did you sign your post "dumbass"?

It should also be noted that people who early on warned of the problems of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cited that implied notion that if either of these GSEs failed, that the federal government would swoop in to bail them out. So with a wink and a nod, companies pushed these bad loans, sold them to Fannie and Freddie, and washed their hands of any wrongdoing.

That's because they knew that Fannie and Freddie knew that the federal government would keep them from falling apart.

And now the implied bail-out has become an explicit bail-out.

You start putting up safety nets for people who do stupid things, and you'll get more people doing stupid things.

^^ true.

The gubment should NOT be in the housing and pension and healthcare industries at all. Cuz sooner or later, the taxpayer gets left on the hook holding the bag and taking it up bumm.