So far the 99%ers are only hitting 27%. Now, I'm no math wiz, but......
Poll ends on the 28th so time will tell.
Poll ends on the 28th so time will tell.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How is that not fair? 10001 is greater then 3000Here the Labour candidate can get 1000 votes, the Liberal 1000 votes, the Independant 1000 and the Conservative 10001. The Conservative will get in despite only 10001 people voting for him and 3000 not wanting him so yes voting and the ballot box is very fair... not.
I'd keep to comments about your side of the pond if I were you.
I think theres a typo. Think she meant 1001 not 10,001.How is that not fair? 10001 is greater then 3000
I think theres a typo. Think she meant 1001 not 10,001.
Hell, that's how Lincoln won.
there, fixed.The same turds that supported the bankers that have tanked the economy.
Fixed it for you and GranThe same turds that regulated the bankers and strong armed them into making bad loans have tanked the economy.
I can tell you from 1st hand knowledge thats what happened. My sister is a dirt bag, 3 kids 3 different drug dealing fathers, works for a few weeks then gets high and forgets to work and get fired, lives off my parents, and the Govt. She was living in Section 8 housing when they had a meeting with Govt officals I believe they were from HUD telling her and others they "Deserved" to buy a home. Now granted when she does work its minium wage jobs so she cant afford a home. She filled out the paper work and bam next thing you know she was prequalified with a loan from a bank for $145,000 home loan. Heres the Kick in the butt she only had to pay $200 a month for her house payment the GOVT paid the rest. Then to top it off she recieved a grant for an additional 30,000 to buy furniture and appliances. She lived there for about a year until she could no longer make her $200 a month home payment. She should have NEVER been allowed to borrow money in the first place. Now the house sits vacant, forclosed on, and she never needs to pay back a dime of the $145,000 or the $30,000 grant. She sold off all the appliances and funriture for dope and a car. So Ive seen it happen.That's really not the case, Don, is it? I know it's the story that's been hitting this forum since about 2008 when the crisis started but it's not the economic truth.
Incentivised greed without proper adult supervision is more like it, with a housing bubble over-pricing assets, boosted by the connivance of the loan-givers, who acted as if the ride would never end as they profit-took with both hands.
She should have NEVER been allowed to borrow money in the first place. Now the house sits vacant, forclosed on, and she never needs to pay back a dime of the $145,000 or the $30,000 grant. She sold off all the appliances and funriture for dope and a car. So Ive seen it happen.
June 1995
Republicans had won control of Congress and planned CRA reforms. The Clinton Administration, however, allied with Rep. Frank, Sen. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Waters (D-California), did an end-around by directing HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to inject GSEs into the subprime mortgage market.
As Kurtz notes,"ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the CRA from GOP reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond." What resulted was the broadening of the "acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis."
The administration announced the bold new homeownership strategy which included monumental loosening of credit standards and imposition of subprime lending quotas. HUD reported that President Clinton had committed "to increasing the homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the year 2000." The plan was "to reduce the financial, information, and systemic barriers to homeownership" which was "amplified by local partnerships at work in over 100 cities."
[FONT=times new roman,times]Kurtz concludes, [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]"Urged on by ACORN, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration helped push tolerance for high-risk loans through every sector of the banking system -- far beyond the sort of banks originally subject to the CRA. So it was the efforts of ACORN and its Democratic allies that first spread the subprime virus from the CRA to Fannie and Freddie and thence to the entire financial system. Soon, Democratic politicians and regulators actually began to take pride in lowered credit standards as a sign of ‘fairness' -- and the contagion spread."[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Attorney General Janet Reno, with a number of bank lending discrimination settlements already, sternly announces, "We will tackle lending discrimination wherever it appears." With the new policy in full force, "No loan is exempt; no bank is immune." "For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement," reiterated Reno.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]
[/FONT]
1980s
With CRA came increased oversight of lending institutions to ensure they were giving credit to low- and moderate-income communities. Regulators expressed that CRA was not designed to compel credit allocation, nor did it require risky lending practices. Moreover, ECOA (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) and FHA, not CRA, were in place to address discrimination in lending. But community organization groups like the radical ACORN began efforts to reshape CRA into government-imposition, in accord with what "affirmative obligation" might suggest. They began pressing the semantic open door and stretching the "discrimination" provision to complain about enforcement of the regulations as lending institutions resisted bad lending practices in poor minority communities.
1990s
With the mechanisms in place, the community organizing groups began developing directed strategies to exert more and more pressure on the lending industry in the cloak of complicity with CRA. Community organizer Barack Obama worked closely with ACORN activists. Employing the radical Alinsky intimidation tactics Obama had learned and was teaching -- "direct action" -- activists crowded bank lobbies, blocked drive-up teller lanes and demonstrated at the homes of bankers to browbeat risky lending in poor and minority communities. Those who resisted were accused of racism to the media and government officials.
The agitators could now stall or hijack bank mergers by filing complaints of non-compliance against the institutions. Lawsuits alleging redlining and racism began flooding the court system. With the prospect of expansions and mergers threatened, banks settled cases and, significantly, increasingly made loans they would not have normally made. The net effect, as ACORN litigation increased, was that credit standards lowered.
Initially the GSEs resisted purchasing these risky mortgages but eventually the Clinton Administration instructed them to substantially increase the percentage of these mortgages in their portfolios. The government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the Clinton reforms became "a feeding trough," in the phrase of Peter Ferrara.
The poor communities and their exploitive leaders benefited from the capitalization with a surge of homeownership, at least on the surface. Wall Street benefited from increased sales of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and guaranteed mortgage-backed securities, as the housing market benefited from new capital channeled from Fannie and Freddie. And the GSE heads profited, with political support in Washington in the form of campaign contributions.
1992
Enforcement of CRA was "sporadic," as the Washington Times notes, until a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study asserted that there were "substantially higher denial rates for black and Hispanic applicants than for white applicants." Co-author Lynn Browne was approached by co-author Alicia Munnell to do the study because "community activists were complaining that mortgage loans were not being made in minority communities."
According to the Times, however, "the study had mishandled statistics on minority default rates. When the errors were accounted for, the same study showed no evidence that nonwhite mortgage applicants were being discriminated against."
So they support consumers paying their fair share? or just the "rich"?