01 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyLMAO!
The CRA act of 1977.
We've went through this before. A law passed in 1977 supposedly caused a financial crisis all of a sudden in 2008?
Surely even you aren't deluded enough to believe that whopper.
BTW, there's nothing in the CRA requiring banks to make "hgh risk" mortgages.
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderSo let me guess, you only blame the corporations and Republicans for not regulating them?
At any rate, there have been economic downturns with reasonably high rates of foreclosure before and no financial crisis. However, the financial industry never cranked out 64 TRILLION dollars of securities based on mortgages before.[/b]
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderCrazy huh? You would think it would happen overnight.
LMAO!
We've went through this before. A law passed in 1977 supposedly caused a financial crisis all of a sudden in 2008?
Surely even you aren't deluded enough to believe that whopper.
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by whodeyI'm perfectly willing to accept that both of the big money parties have adopted policies that favored the rich in the last 25 years (well for more than that, but it's been really bad in the last 25 years or so). These policies have led, predictably, to economic hardship for the average American.
So let me guess, you only blame the corporations and Republicans for not regulating them?
The question is now who's going to change these policies? A stubborn insistence that any type of tax increase on the rich is out of bounds isn't a good start.
01 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyPerhaps you could produce a reason when it took 30 years for this law to create such a mess.
Crazy huh? You would think it would happen overnight.
As between a law passed in 1977 that didn't force anyone to fund a "high risk" mortgage and policies in the 2000's that created untold trillions of dollars worth of securities sensitive to even a small rise in foreclosure rates, I think the latter is a far more reasonable answer as to the cause of the financial crisis.
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderWell I am glad to hear you are not on a partisan crusade like others on these threads.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that both of the big money parties have adopted policies that favored the rich in the last 25 years (well for more than that, but it's been really bad in the last 25 years or so). These policies have led, predictably, to economic hardship for the average American.
The question is now who's going to change ...[text shortened]... rn insistence that any type of tax increase on the rich is out of bounds isn't a good start.
As for a tax increase, how about waiting until the economic crisis is averted? As counterintuitive as it may be for liberals, this is NOT the time. There is a time a place for everything.
01 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThe same reason that I think social security will go bust. It has taken years upon years to get where we are now and if nothing is done it will make the credit crisis a walk through the park. It all has to do with entitlements rather than economic common sense. I think the deregulation during the Clinton years accelerated this problem.
[b]Perhaps you could produce a reason when it took 30 years for this law to create such a mess.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
02 Nov 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNo, what is sad is how many Americans are willing to trade their hard-won rights for crap like the Patriot Act.
Nonsense. What's sad is how many Americans are willing to trade their hard-won rights for Bismarkian cradle-to-grave welfare.
