News ATF disrupts skinhead plot to assassinate Obama

[Benzoate]

*Facepalm* You can be a racist against your own race.

Well not in this case. The only racists are those who are OBSESS with race, whether they be the neo-nazis or the black panthers . Collectivists are racists by nature. Not voting for Obama doesn't make you a racist.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am NOT voting for Mccain or Obama. Democrats and Republicans are both destroying this country! And If we are voting for either of these candidates, just expect to see the same mess. And I never said obama was born in Kenya! But have you talked to any of obama family members who witness his birth? So you are in no position to conclude whether obama is a citizen or not . Until someone can debunked the statement obama's paternal grandmother made about the place of obama, birth, I will remain skeptical. Obama is making claims that he was born in Hawaii. Obama family members(at least on his dad side) claims that he was born in kenya. Someone is lying.

First of all, you have no evidence to support this silly claim, and Obama has made his birth certificate available. You are engaging in blatant crackpottery, which completely discredits anything that you have to say. What's more, factcheck has a photo of Obama's birth announcement in the local paper.

In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961

[see photo]

The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/close-up.jpg
http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/page-view.jpg

So let's stop the nonsense.

 

[turbo]

Social Security is a program maintained and regulated by our government. Now the US government owns two major banks know for lending out housing loans. What do you called that if that is not a form of socialism. When I mean socialism, I mean we are heading towards the direction of socialism. We need to be heading in a direction where the size of government is small, meaning we pay mainly the US military,not of course to finance a war where we were never attack, not subsidize every person or groups needs, whether they be idaho farmers, or research scientists or any other special interest group

Is socialism any use of public funds with which you disagree? If so, we might have some interesting (if not productive) talks.

 

[Benzoate]

First of all, you have no evidence to support this silly claim, and Obama has made his birth certificate available. You are engaging in blatant crackpottery, which completely discredits anything that you have to say. What's more, factcheck has a photo of Obama's birth announcement in the local paper.

websites can lie, just like any other media outlet. Berg claims he has an audiotape of Obama's paternal grandmother saying that she recalls Obama being born in some delivery room in Kenya. He says that the audiotape is in her native language and is waiting to be translated into english. I never said that Obama was not born in Hawaii. I said people would go insane and start riots in the street if they it really did turn out that Obama was not a US citizen because they will feel that there vote has been wasted. Yep, gullible people would not start riots in the street because are US constitution has been corroded and stamped upon. No , they would start riots in the streets because some politician turned out not to be a US citizen. Until Berg releases an audiotape where obama's grandmother supposedly claims that Obama was born in Kenya, then I will make my decision about obama's true birthplace. But my main concern is his birthplace or his religious background, or if he went to Harvard and became President of the Law Review , or if he will be the first black president, but the policies he(or Mccain) plans to implement once he(or mccain) becomes President. His policies(nor Mccain's policies) mesh with my political philosophies. Both candidates want bigger government, want to continue a foreign policy where the american government sticks there nose in every other country's business. The America I would like to see is the America that Thomas Paine envisioned for this country.


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/close-up.jpg
http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/page-view.jpg

So let's stop the nonsense.[/QUOTE]

 

[Astronuc]

Now the US government owns two major banks know for lending out housing loans.

I'm not sure if this refers to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the two GSE's), or two of the several other financial institutions in which the government bought stock (took equity) or not.

The government stepped in because various financial institutions were negligent and in some cases fraudulent in handling the finances.

So what is the viable alternative - let the entire economy collapse?

Should we allow the economy to run by corporate oligarchs (like the Russian economy)?

Capitalism was given free rein in the US, and many of those who had the responsibility to make the free market work blew it big time. And now the rest of us bail them out.

Dishonesty and corruption undermined capitalism, just as it can undermine any socialist system.

 

[turbo]

websites can lie, just like any other media outlet. Berg claims he has an audiotape of Obama's paternal grandmother saying that she recalls Obama being born in some delivery room in Kenya.

You haven't been paying attention. It doesn't matter if Obama was born on Mars. He was born to a citizen of the US. She was a full citizen of the US and had not renounced that citizenship. You are beating a dead horse - for what reason I know not.

 

[Benzoate]

I'm not sure if this refers to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the two GSE's), or two of the several other financial institutions in which the government bought stock (took equity) or not.

The government stepped in because various financial institutions were negligent and in some cases fraudulent in handling the finances.

So what is the viable alternative - let the entire economy collapse?

Should we allow the economy to run by corporate oligarchs (like the Russian economy)?

Capitalism was given free rein in the US, and many of those who had the responsibility to make the free market work blew it big time. And now the rest of us bail them out.

Dishonesty and corruption undermined capitalism, just as it can undermine any socialist system.

We are not practicing true capitalism. We are practicing a mutant form of capitalism, where government lies in bed with corporations, receiving tax breaks, money grants, and other subsidies from the federal government. Certain businesses are being favored by the government over other businesses.

But there was already government oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie MAc. Governmen.t told those institutions to lend to homeowners who did not have the proper credit score. Congress pressure financial institutions to lend money to recipients that were considered high risked homebuyers . Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd wrote legislation that would forced these institutions that would lend to buyers who were not able to afford a house. Up until recently, Our congress people were cheerleaders for these financial lending institutions.

If I had a small business that gave out loans to people, and my business failed, the government would not bail me out. Businesses fail all the time. New businesses would likely replaced the institutions that have failed.

 

[Astronuc]

Governmen.t told those institutions to lend to homeowners who did not have the proper credit score.

Please provide the evidence to support this claim, which I've heard frequently recently.

The CRA mandated that companies not discriminate. I don't see where it forced companies to make fraudulent mortgages/loans, or loans to 'unqualified buyers/lenders'. The objective was to stop discrimination. How the companies put that into practice was up to them.

 

[Benzoate]

Please provide the evidence to support this claim, which I've heard frequently recently.

The CRA mandated that companies not discriminate. I don't see where it forced companies to make fraudulent mortgages/loans, or loans to 'unqualified buyers/lenders'. The objective was to stop discrimination. How the companies put that into practice was up to them.

Watch John Stossel's special Politically Incorrect guide to politics. He interviews economists who've said that deregulations of the housing financial markets isn't the reason Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have failed.

 

[turbo]

Please provide the evidence to support this claim, which I've heard frequently recently.

The CRA mandated that companies not discriminate. I don't see where it forced companies to make fraudulent mortgages/loans, or loans to 'unqualified buyers/lenders'. The objective was to stop discrimination. How the companies put that into practice was up to them.

The blame extends all the way down to the realtors. It's easy to point the finger at one group or another, but the housing bubble was a boon to a LOT of people all up and down the food-chain.

Let's say that a modest home sold for $100,000 at the standard (around here, anyway) realtor's commission of 7%. The agency gets half of the commission ($3500), the listing agent gets a quarter ($1750), and the selling agent gets a quarter ($1750). You've got agents helping buyers decide how much of a mortgage they can afford, and advising them about filling out credit applications... "The way housing prices are soaring, you'll be able to re-finance before the adjustable rate ever kicks in." "Just put down any income level that you think will allow you to make the payments. You'll be making more money in the future, anyway. They'll never check."

There is plenty of blame to go around, though the bubble probably couldn't have gotten so badly out-of-control if the speculators were not allowed to bundle the debt and resell it. Years ago, if you borrowed money from your bank to buy a house, they held the mortgage and they were on the hook if you defaulted. For this reason, they were quite diligent in their evaluation of your finances, the value of the home in question, the trends in the local real-estate market, etc, etc. That connection between borrower and lender is lost today, and lenders make deals, collect their closing costs and points, and pass on the note to a holding company who bundles and resells it.

 

[Astronuc]

Yesterday, I listened to a bank president being interviewed on NPR. He talked about how his bank didn't get into subprime loans, and in fact, rejected a number of applications during the review process. In one case, one of their agents questioned a couple who claimed they made $150K income. They mentioned that they earned about $90K. Asked why they had put $150 K, the couple informed the reviewer that they were told to put that in order to qualify for the loan!

Texas Banks Draw On Lessons From The S&L Crisis
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96260663

"We'd ask the people, 'Do you make $150,000 a year?' And they'd say, 'Naw, I make $90,000 a year,' " Hickman recounts. "'Well, why does it say 150?' 'Well, the guy representing XYZ Mortgage Co. told me that's what I had to have on the application to qualify for the loan.' Well, we'd look at them and say, 'Sorry, we can't do that.' "

 

[mheslep]

Please provide the evidence to support this claim, which I've heard frequently recently.

The CRA mandated that companies not discriminate. I don't see where it forced companies to make fraudulent mortgages/loans, or loans to 'unqualified buyers/lenders'. The objective was to stop discrimination. How the companies put that into practice was up to them.

Here's the law:

SEC. 802. (a) The Congress finds that--
(1) regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;
(2) the convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit services; and
(3) regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.
(b) It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.
...
SEC. 807. WRITTEN EVALUATIONS.
...
(2) ASSIGNED RATING.--The institution's rating referred to in paragraph (1)(C) shall be 1 of the following:
(A) "Outstanding record of meeting community credit needs."
(B) "Satisfactory record of meeting community credit needs."
(C) "Needs to improve record of meeting community credit needs."
(D) "Substantial noncompliance in meeting community credit needs."

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-2515.html
It appears to me that the lendors are totally at the mercy of a given regulator to decide whether or not a lendor "serves the convenience and needs of the communities."

 

[mheslep]

...Let's say that a modest home sold for $100,000 at the standard (around here, anyway) realtor's commission of 7%. The agency gets half of the commission ($3500), the listing agent gets a quarter ($1750), and the selling agent gets a quarter ($1750). You've got agents helping buyers decide how much of a mortgage they can afford, and advising them about filling out credit applications... "The way housing prices are soaring, you'll be able to re-finance before the adjustable rate ever kicks in." "Just put down any income level that you think will allow you to make the payments. You'll be making more money in the future, anyway. They'll never check."

There is plenty of blame to go around, though the bubble probably couldn't have gotten so badly out-of-control if the speculators were not allowed to bundle the debt and resell it. Years ago, if you borrowed money from your bank to buy a house, they held the mortgage and they were on the hook if you defaulted. For this reason, they were quite diligent in their evaluation of your finances, the value of the home in question, the trends in the local real-estate market, etc, etc. That connection between borrower and lender is lost today, and lenders make deals, collect their closing costs and points, and pass on the note to a holding company who bundles and resells it.

Yes, exactly. I'll go further and say that the situation described in your first paragraph, someone attempting to bending the rules or otherwise acting irresponsibly, takes place not only in mortgages, but at the margins of every commercial endeavour of society. Usually that kind of behaviour stays at the margins because there are consequences, either legal or financial. The difference this time is your 2nd paragraph, the wholesale bundling of the risk by the bullet proof (for awhile) GSEs so that there were no consequences to the actions described in the first.

 

[Astronuc]

It appears to me that the lendors are totally at the mercy of a given regulator to decide whether or not a lendor "serves the convenience and needs of the communities."

All it means is that a bank provides banking services in the community in which they have an office, i.e. they can't take deposits in an area, and then refuse to provide banking services in that area. They are not forced to give mortgages at all, if the bank doesn't provide mortgages, and they are certainly not obliged or forced to give sub-prime mortgages. The point of the CRA was to prohibit discrimination, which was a big problem still in the early 70's.

 

[mheslep]

All it means is that a bank provides banking services in the community in which they have an office, i.e. they can't take deposits in an area, and then refuse to provide banking services in that area. They are not forced to give mortgages at all, if the bank doesn't provide mortgages, and they are certainly not obliged or forced to give sub-prime mortgages. ...

How do you know this given the letter of the law? All that is required is for a regulator to assess that a bank doing business in the area, in his/her mostly subjective opinion, is failing to meet the 'communities needs'. The bank might very well find that it continues to be cited for 'failing to meet needs' until it either a) gives up and stops doing business in the area, or b) agrees to make bad credit loans. I don't have evidence that this has been the case, but as I read the law it logically enables such actions.

 

[NeoDevin]

I don't have evidence that this has been the case

Then why are you claiming it is the cause of the current crisis?

 

[mheslep]

Then why are you claiming it is the cause of the current crisis?

Why are you attributing to me things I never said?

 

[NeoDevin]

Why are you attributing to me things I never said?

Sorry, I was thinking one of Benzoate's posts was yours. I retract my question.

 

[LowlyPion]

This thread has been sent so far afield that it should be shot as some rogue thread or renamed or something. I went back looking for where it was that anyone actually discussed the original post and I really think that after post 8 or so some variant strain of Forum Alzheimers or Chat Site Dementia has set in.

ATF - the government agency that in Palin's America is named for a shopping list?

Now that was funny and that's not even from this thread.

 

[Evo]

This thread has been sent so far afield that it should be shot as some rogue thread or renamed or something. I went back looking for where it was that anyone actually discussed the original post and I really think that after post 8 or so some variant strain of Forum Alzheimers or Chat Site Dementia has set in.

ATF - the government agency that in Palin's America is named for a shopping list?

Now that was funny and that's not even from this thread.

Yep, thread closed.