Maxine Waters Tax GangBanks Out of Business

Discussion in 'Economy' started by freedombecki, Sep 3, 2011.

  1. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,690
    Thanks Received:
    5,924
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    My house
    Ratings:
    +5,933
    Maxine Waters, D-Ca, wishes to define banks who mind going bankrupt making bad loans as "Gangsta Banks," and she wants President Obama to tax them out of business. :rolleyes:

    Mediaite

    Is this wise when so many people are out of work, to further frighten the business sector?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. grunt11b
    Offline

    grunt11b VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,649
    Thanks Received:
    500
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    In Reality
    Ratings:
    +501
    They are just putting on a show, they want those people out of their homes so they can place them on gubment assistance, they want those people out of work for the same reason. They need a collapse in this economy to reach their totalitarian goals.
     
  3. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    I thought they were people?

    shouldnt they be punished for harming others with lies and duplicity?
     
  4. BoycottTheday
    Offline

    BoycottTheday CEO

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,301
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +95
    I cant get away with poor spelling butt these people are in power?

    Doesnt make sense, i get vetted on comments made here more than the average Democrat

    gets by the mass media after they say the most screwed up chit.

    LIAMD :cuckoo:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,690
    Thanks Received:
    5,924
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    My house
    Ratings:
    +5,933
    People who make loans, agreeing to pay them back, then go spend they money on drugs and "can't" pay?

    Banks should just stfu and stay outta they way, letting the wage earners pay the druglords?

    Maybe Maxine should try running a bank?

    Nobody likes to see anyone lose their homes, Truthmatters, but if you buy a 4-bedroom mansion with someone else's money, then quit your job and pursue happiness thinking nobody can touch you, you're putting the government in the business of letting criminal mischief go unpunished.

    Maxine Waters must destroy America's financial sector to get votes from people who pay nothing in taxes to help America foot the bill for criminal mischief.

    That is bad, and it is not good.
     
  6. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    they are already engaged in making banks do exactly what got us here ala the housing bubble( see below).......and since her husband got a Tarp bailout for his banking interets ( whats up wiht that investigation btw?) shes got some friggin nerve...what a hack...



    * AUGUST 31, 2011

    Justice's New War Against Lenders
    The Obama administration repeats mistakes of the past by intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates in the name of combatting discrimination.

    Talk about not learning from past mistakes: A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess.

    The 1990s may have brought us supercharged politicized lending, but Eric Holder's Department of Justice is taking the game to an entirely new level, and then some. The weapon is a "fair lending" unit created in early 2010, led by special counsel Eric Halperin and overseen by Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez.

    A sampling of Mr. Perez's thinking, from April 2010 congressional testimony: "The foreclosure crisis has touched virtually every community in this country, but it disproportionately touches communities of color, in particular African-Americans and Latinos." And: "[C]ross burnings are the most overt form of discrimination and bigotry. Lending discrimination is some of the most subtle. It's what I call discrimination with a smile."

    Even for the Obama administration's antidiscrimination cops, this is a shocker: A political appointee who's supposed to neutrally enforce the law loosely equates bankers with Klu Klux Klan thugs. But let's move from what may be Mr. Perez's personal bias, and focus on the broader brush strokes of the Justice Department—which seem designed to paint bankers into a corner.

    Lenders who discriminate on the basis of race and those who make decisions on the basis of credit scores are two entirely different animals. The former our society doesn't permit, for moral reasons; the latter we encourage because it's fundamental to capitalism. A lender will go bust if he can't distinguish between a risky loan and a good loan. Poor people aren't well-served by getting loans they can't afford.

    Historically, fair-lending cases have fallen into roughly two categories: "price discrimination" cases, in which lenders are accused of charging minorities higher prices than other clients, and "red-lining" suits, in which they are accused of intentionally failing to serve minority communities. Sounds straightforward for those who seek to obey the law.


    snip-

    But not when Justice revives "disparate impact" theory: the idea that even if lenders don't actively discriminate, they can still be sued if the cumulative effect of their actions implies discrimination. The latter is usually "proved" through statistical analysis (and the old standard—discriminatory intent—is thrown out the window). The Bush administration largely declined to pursue these cases.

    And for good reason. Consider two AIG subsidiaries that Justice alleged "failed to supervise or monitor brokers in setting broker fees" between 2003 and 2006, but that Justice didn't pursue aggressively until the Obama administration. The government claimed that, in aggregate, African-Americans were charged more than other ethnic groups. AIG settled in March 2010 while it was under federal ownership, and Mr. Perez gained a big legal stick in price-discrimination cases. Suddenly lenders may be held liable for other people's business practices, even if those business practices aren't individually discriminatory.

    Justice is pushing the legal envelope on red-lining, too. In a July 1 letter to Cardinal Financial Corp., Justice contends that after the bank bought George Mason Mortgage in 2004, it "failed to serve predominantly black areas on an equal basis with predominantly white areas" by not opening branches in majority-black areas or engaging in "effective outreach activities." Justice wants the bank to add nine counties to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-approved geographic area where Cardinal does business.

    more at-

    Mary Kissel: Justice's New War Against Lenders - WSJ.com
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Immanuel
    Offline

    Immanuel Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    16,823
    Thanks Received:
    2,210
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +2,224
    She's a Democrat. She doesn't care about jobs for the little guy.

    Immie
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  8. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,690
    Thanks Received:
    5,924
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    My house
    Ratings:
    +5,933
    Thanks, Mr. Trajan. IOW, Maxine Waters, D-CA is influence-peddling her family TARP bailout, which means her calumny against decent people who happen to be bankers is pointed to save herself and her family money. (TARP = "Troubled Assets Relief Program") So that's how congresscritters go to Congress. It's not about helping others, it's about hurting others and taking their money away from them through taxation. They even have Training Areas telling their pals how to screw everyone else by taking advantage of TARP legislation. I bet they don't tell any Republicans and others Mrs. Waters wants to tax to death.

    Yes, I am beginning to see her hypocrisy in protecting herself, her own money, which will have to finance her re-elections another way, once it is squandered.

    My gosh, getting everybody, Democrats and Republicans, to foot the bill for her own personal piggy bank enhancement with bitter-banter politics is really dirty politics. :rolleyes:

    What a Washington parasite Maxine Waters has made of herself. No wonder California is in such fiscal trouble.

    Laws of Mercy.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2011
  9. dcbl
    Offline

    dcbl Good guys wear white hats

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    758
    Thanks Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    Bham, AL
    Ratings:
    +640
    Our friends on the left want to tax EVERYONE out of business. Why should banks be any different?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,690
    Thanks Received:
    5,924
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    My house
    Ratings:
    +5,933
    Well, Obama started out by subsidizing banks who supported HIM. Now, Maxine Waters wants to decimate through taxation banks who do not cooperate with her plan of making bad loans to people who have no intention of paying them back. There was talk of an exploratory committed into the nefarious activities of Maxine Waters a little while ago, which seems to have escalated her to eliminate through her Congressional Seats the free enterprises that do not pave her way.

    That means, she will not consider free enterprise as an option to the government takeover closet Marxists in the government have on their agenda. She's even gone so far as to compliment Fidel Castro after voting against his doings a couple of years back.

    I truly do not think eliminating free enterprise will bolster poor Californians whom she claims to represent.

    If you destroy free enterprise, it will take out the economic base that has made America enjoy prosperity--good food, cross-country travel to make friends in other states with affordable gasoline and cars, interstate commerce, competitiveness enough to ensure that people can afford everyday commodities, the whole enchilada of free enterprise benefits.

    The alternative is starvation, even more joblessness than there already is, "representatives" representing their family's TARP interests more than her duty to uphold the U. S. Constitution as it is written, anarchy, rebellion, civil war, and all the things that go to exacerbate poverty to more people than those the government is lying are in poverty but own two cars, two television sets in color, computers, etc.

    We, the people, need to be chary if not ever-vigilant against those who are promoting themselves while masquerading as representatives of the poor, which are truly their last concern.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2011

Share This Page