why WA needs to legalize automatic weapons (exhibit A)

[Jamie6.5]

Perhaps you could show me where it requires banks to make loans to people who can't repay them cause I couldn't find it?

Do you really understand the term "sub prime" bob?

 

[locobob]

Do you really understand the term "sub prime" bob?

The real problem with mortgage lending as I see it is the disconnect. A broker makes the deal and doesn't care if its bs cause once he gets his commission he is out. Then a bank grabs it, assumes its fine (wink wink) and bundles it up with a bunch of other loans to sell to someone else - they get their money and are also out. The rating agencies who are supposed to catch this bs are either on the take or asleep because it gets a big old AAA and is gone. So who is left holding the bag.... some pension fund that bought AAA mortgage securities thinking they were a safe bet. Oh and then we find out that the banks cashed in again because they bet against the investment they sold in a casino known as the credit default swap market.
So we have fraud from the get-go because everyone gets to pass the buck.

Again I see nothing that compels banks to make sub-prime loans, I only see language that says you can't have different rules for people of different age, race, sex etc.

If you want to understand the realities of the "mortgage meltdown" try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis It's a nice comprehensive look at the perfect storm of things that came together to form the crisis. Playing "blame the liberals" is just simple minded fantasy.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

What needs to happen is a SC challenge of the law as unconstitutional, and then challenge the NFA altogether.. how hard is it to understand the words ARMS and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ???

 

[locobob]

I have absolutely no beef with demonstrating political opinions and grievances (and although expressed by simpletons, I even agree with a few of the points being raised by Occupy-XYZ), but when "political protesters" transition to "insurrectionist", "anarchist", and "looters/rioters" then the gloves need to come off to get all "bare-knuckle" on their arses.

I can't stand brainless "mob mentality", and when that occurs they are nothing more that a herd of animals that need to be controlled. Occupy-XYZ is vacillating over that line more and more these days... there will be tragedies if they don't get a grip and take it to the ballot box and STOP VOTING THE SAME SCHMUCKS INTO OFFICE TIME AFTER TIME based on the "letter" of the political party following a candidate's name.

Holy Crap...... I just noticed that we actually agree on something..... I better find my jacket cause **** must have frozen over

 

[Stomper]

I'm a registered Independent (not a pundit) but I have no use for the clueless dopes that make up the Occupy-XYZ. As for the, "screw eveyone else I got mine" contention... danged straight I got mine, because I worked at what I do for a living until I've almost literally dropped on my feet from mental and physical exhaustion (more than a few times), and endured setbacks, hardships, thefts, back-stabbings, COUNTLESS hours of schooling, etc. and didn't demand anyone "make it right" for me... I dealt with it, learned from it, and pushed through it... and now I'm at the top of my game and gots mine.

It can be done by ANYONE with a passion for what they do and a willingness to prevail.... and I intend to keep it, and God help anyone who attempts to forcibly take it from me and mine.

 

[BrentN]

Fresh out of the Army in 1990, 21 yrs old, I bought my first house through Countrywide. I had no job, planning schooling with GI bill. Wife was making $11/hr. We were approved for a loan that we would not nearly be able to afford. We swallowed a little pride and signed on for a much smaller loan than approved for, one we knew we could afford. I had no idea at the time of the "Community Reinvestment Act" or pretty much anything else political. We were also given a tax credit for buying in a "targeted location", North Portland. I'm simple minded, but it seems to me that the Feds leaned on the banks to give more loans to higher risk buyers in targeted areas, which often have higher minority populations. Yet, the banks had an escape hatch through the Feds, no? I have to ask- what should the broker have done differently? What should the bank have done differently? I could have done something different by accepting the full approved loan amount and ending up foreclosed on. Would the bubble have been better or worse without the Feds interfereing with the housing market? Well, banks would not have made nearly as many risky loans, consumers would not have had the option to way over-extend their incomes, and there would undoubtedly be less foreclosures today. I give zero confidence to the CRA and Fed intrusion on markets in general. Just my opinion of course, I'm always open to being educated.
What this has to do with legalization of full autos - I have no idea. But I do support it in at least the capacity that OR has. I can't afford one, but I see these MG shoot gatherings, where others are encouraged to pay a few bucks or bring some ammo and join in the fun!

 

[rur862]

I read it and I am weeping..... for you. It says you can't discriminate when lending people money. Perhaps you could show me where it requires banks to make loans to people who can't repay them cause I couldn't find it?

Your absolutely wrong if you think banks care about keeping the black man down.
Just like the OWS protesters say all they care about is making money.
If they think they can make a buck off giving a loan to a working class black family they will do it.
Banking is a business like any other, Bankers care about making profits for their depositors, not about returning us to the days of Jim Croww.

 

[locobob]

Your absolutely wrong if you think banks care about keeping the black man down.
Just like the OWS protesters say all they care about is making money.
If they think they can make a buck off giving a loan to a working class black family they will do it.
Banking is a business like any other, Bankers care about making profits for their depositors, not about returning us to the days of Jim Croww.

I don't disagree... at this point banks don't care about any color except green. But it wasn't that long ago that they engaged in practices such as redlining - of course those games were largely about money too.

 

[BrentN]

I don't disagree... at this point banks don't care about any color except green. But it wasn't that long ago that they engaged in practices such as redlining - of course those games were largely about money too.

When did banks not care about green? Are they supposed to operate without a profit motive? Do you? I like the idea of competition to keep this profit in check automatically. The Fed Govt is destroying this idea. To big to fail my bubblegum. When the Feds decide to pick who the winners are, well, you see the result. The same pattern can be seen in education, healthcare, govt contracting, the list goes on.

 

[locobob]

When did banks not care about green? Are they supposed to operate without a profit motive? Do you? I like the idea of competition to keep this profit in check automatically. The Fed Govt is destroying this idea. To big to fail my bubblegum. When the Feds decide to pick who the winners are, well, you see the result. The same pattern can be seen in education, healthcare, govt contracting, the list goes on.

They have always cared about green but there was a time when some business also cared about the color of the person with the green.
They are supposed to operate with a profit motive, however there is a difference between making a profit honestly and running a scam or Ponzi scheme.
I also like the idea of healthy competition. To have such a thing requires enforcement of anti-trust laws and regulations aimed at keeping the market mechanism working in a manner as such to reward responsible and ethical business practices.
Too big to fail equals too big to exist in my opinion. If a private business can't be allowed to fail out of fear of destroying the greater industry or economy as a whole then it should be broken up using anti-monopoly laws.
I think we could accomplish this with relatively few, strictly and evenly enforced laws. Instead we have a veritable mountain of unenforced, unintelligible code that only serves those who can afford the bribes necessary to have it tailored to their whims.

 

[DMax]

The real problem with mortgage lending as I see it is the disconnect. A broker makes the deal and doesn't care if its bs cause once he gets his commission he is out. Then a bank grabs it, assumes its fine (wink wink) and bundles it up with a bunch of other loans to sell to someone else - they get their money and are also out. The rating agencies who are supposed to catch this bs are either on the take or asleep because it gets a big old AAA and is gone. So who is left holding the bag.... some pension fund that bought AAA mortgage securities thinking they were a safe bet. Oh and then we find out that the banks cashed in again because they bet against the investment they sold in a casino known as the credit default swap market.
So we have fraud from the get-go because everyone gets to pass the buck.

Again I see nothing that compels banks to make sub-prime loans, I only see language that says you can't have different rules for people of different age, race, sex etc.

If you want to understand the realities of the "mortgage meltdown" try reading this: Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It's a nice comprehensive look at the perfect storm of things that came together to form the crisis. Playing "blame the liberals" is just simple minded fantasy.

This may clear up the denial of Libs
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

 

[locobob]

This may clear up the denial of Libs
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

That's just one small piece of a much bigger puzzle and only half of the equation regarding sub-prime. Here is a quote regarding the other half:

As a mortgage professional I can tell you, the banks and wall Street money brokers out there are so greedy to make loans they are lending to anyone. Borrowers I couldn't get financed 5 years ago I can now get a zero down no income verification loan. And all the zero down investor loans I'm doing! Many of these small time investors haven't a clue what they are getting into. But the banks are glad to lend the money.

 

[Stomper]

They have always cared about green but there was a time when some business also cared about the color of the person with the green.

Key word being, "WAS"! You have the race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton making quite a nice living from inventing racism where none exists. As a matter of fact, THE LEFT is the only one who notices and cares about the color of a person's skin... that's racist.

They are supposed to operate with a profit motive, however there is a difference between making a profit honestly and running a scam or Ponzi scheme.

Like Social Security... another "benefit" brought to you by leftists Progressives.

I also like the idea of healthy competition. To have such a thing requires enforcement of anti-trust laws and regulations aimed at keeping the market mechanism working in a manner as such to reward responsible and ethical business practices.
Too big to fail equals too big to exist in my opinion. If a private business can't be allowed to fail out of fear of destroying the greater industry or economy as a whole then it should be broken up using anti-monopoly laws.

Amen to this paragraph! In addition to representing the USA's interests abroad, THAT is (IMHO) the reason for the Federal Government's existence.

I think we could accomplish this with relatively few, strictly and evenly enforced laws. Instead we have a veritable mountain of unenforced, unintelligible code that only serves those who can afford the bribes necessary to have it tailored to their whims.

We could rectify this problem starting right in our own back yard, by voting the bums out of office who "look the other way", on BOGUS "imminent domain" land seizeurs, and infringments on private property land use by environmental lobbyists.

Giving "welfare cards", free healthcare, free lunches, and "sanctuary cities" to illegals.

Using funds collected for one purpose and using them for another "pet project" purpose that the public voted down (i.e. Portland Water Buraeu and those spiffy billion dollar a mile MAX lines)... etc, etc.


Government ISN'T the solution, Government is the PROBLEM.

 

[Stomper]

Oh wait... this thread was about legalizing full-auto in Washington... let's drop the rants now (since I'm done... LOL!!)

 

[locobob]

Oh wait... this thread was about legalizing full-auto in Washington... let's drop the rants now (since I'm done... LOL!!)

Oh..... is that what is was about? lol

 

[Jamie6.5]

That's just one small piece of a much bigger puzzle and only half of the equation regarding sub-prime. Here is a quote regarding the other half:

As a mortgage professional I can tell you, the banks and wall Street money brokers out there are so greedy to make loans they are lending to anyone. Borrowers I couldn't get financed 5 years ago I can now get a zero down no income verification loan. And all the zero down investor loans I'm doing! Many of these small time investors haven't a clue what they are getting into. But the banks are glad to lend the money.

You have to remember that prior to the "fair housing act" of 1994, that wonderful program sponsored by dodd and frank, those banks NEVER would have conducted business like that. The reason being, is that Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have bought that lousy loan paper from them. They'd have been stuck with it, and would have had to bear the defaults.
What part of this is sooooo difficult for you to understand bob?

When dodd, frank and clinton relaxed fannie and freddie's standards, it opened the door for this corruption and fraud.
But lefties like to blame Bush's lack of regulation.
(When reality tells us that was not the case: <broken link removed> )

But when you have crooks like franklin raines (appointed by clinton) and his predecessor, James A. Johnson re-writing the rules to give themselves undeserved bonuses, while they burn the financials to the ground, the collapse of '08 is the result.

But if you REALLY want to know how much your leftist admin wants to give these folks a pass, look into the positions these two criminals have held outside of their dismal performance at Fannie Mae!

James A. Johnson (businessman) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Post-Fannie Mae career

Since 2001, Johnson has been vice chairman of the private banking firm Perseus LLC.

Johnson chaired the vice presidential selection committee for the unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry. There was speculation that, had Kerry won, Johnson might have been named Kerry's chief of staff, or Secretary of the Treasury.[1]
[edit] Association with Barack Obama

Johnson has been a strong supporter of Barack Obama since at least 2004. Johnson gave $1,000 to Obama's Senate campaign in 2004. In 2008 he donated the maximum allowed $4,600 to Obama's presidential campaign.[8] In addition, Johnson was a bundler for the Obama campaign, raising between $200,000 and $500,000.[9] He also participated in Obama campaign efforts to recruit former Clinton supporters.[10]

On June 4, 2008, Obama announced the formation of a three-person committee to vet vice presidential candidates, including Johnson.[11] However, Johnson soon became a source of controversy when it was reported that he had received $7 million in cut-rate mortgage loans directly from Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of Countrywide Financial, a company implicated in the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis.[12] Although he was not accused of any wrongdoing and was initially defended by Obama on the grounds that he was simply an unpaid volunteer, Johnson announced he would step down from the vice-presidential vetting position on June 11, 2008, in order to avoid being a distraction to Obama's campaign.[13]

Just look at the positions franklin raines has held within democrat admins:
Franklin Raines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He served in the Carter Administration as associate director for economics and government in the Office of Management and Budget and assistant director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff from 1977 to 1979. Then he joined Lazard Freres and Co., where he worked for 11 years and became a general partner. In 1991 he became Fannie's Mae's Vice Chairman, a post he left in 1996 in order to join the Clinton Administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, where he served until 1998. In 1999, he returned to Fannie Mae as CEO, "the first black man to head a Fortune 500 company."[3]

The people and policies you are advocating for have an indisputable track record of corruption and mismanagement, and have done so while appointed by, and with the blessings of the political powers you have openly advocated for.

You are demonstrating ignorance or naivete or just plain stupidity by doing so.
Millions of people lost trillions of dollars as a result of the collapse of '08.
To deny the reason(s) that started the mess is nearly as criminal as the perpetrators themselves.
Because it enables those that screwed it up to use the same policies to start the cycle all over again.

 

[locobob]

You have to remember that prior to the "fair housing act" of 1994, that wonderful program sponsored by dodd and frank, those banks NEVER would have conducted business like that. The reason being, is that Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have bought that lousy loan paper from them. They'd have been stuck with it, and would have had to bear the defaults.
What part of this is sooooo difficult for you to understand bob?

You've got to get past the tunnel vision Jamie, Fannie and Freddie is just one piece of the puzzle. Life is never simple, if someone gives you a simple answer to a very complex problem they are almost always full of BS.

"The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause." GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders into subprime lending"

Quote is from here: Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jamie6.5]

I am not the one with tunnel vision bob.
You refuse to acknowledge the FACT that before the fair housing act, this crap didn't, and NEVER WOULD HAVE taken place.
Left to their own policies and methods, banks didn't do business like that. They had been loaning money for housing for a century or more, and even in the years of F&F, prior to 1994, had done so soundly and successfully.
Until along came the social justice crowd telling them they weren't being "fair."

End of story.
Any denials by you, or any leftist propaganda you want to quote is irrelevant.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I notice you seem to have NO ANSWER for the evidence of corruption and ineptitude involving the people I mentioned in my prior posts, and the politicians that employed and promoted them.

Head in the *ahem* sand bob?
Follow the money indeed.

 

[locobob]

I have lots of answers, you just don't like them LOL