Discussion in 'Stock Market' started by Nonelitist, Apr 29, 2010.
Yes, Obama has made it clear that his ideology is socialism.
I answer this again because what you added...and you're so correct. And nevermind that History would show them to be the fools that they are for the repeat performance and dragging the rest of us with them.
Exactly correct. His ideology is what drives him. His Ideology has bankrupted this Republic. He knows what needs to be done. But to do so would admit the failure of himself -AND- his ideology to boot.
His arrogance, his pride, his narcissism won't allow it. He continues to blame others to compensate.
Helping the wealthiest Americans= Capitalism at its finest
Helping working Americans= Socialism
I don't play with strawmen.
His desire to redistribute wealth is clear and a tenet of socialist ideology.
And it's important to understand to whom the redistribution is aimed: Public Employee Unions and other political cronies.
Now he's targeting the 401Ks of private sector employees to bail out the underfunded pensions of unionized employees.
There is no law requiring banks to make bad loans and sell them to investors as good loans, you are mistaken. If its the CRA you are thinking of, most of the bad loans that were made were made by institutions not bound by the CRA regulations. The large investment banks, for instance, are not covered under the CRA.
Believe it or not, its not intrinsically risky to make loans to poor and minorities. No law ever required that banks make loans to the poor that were bigger then they could reasonably afford, nor did any law compel them to make loans to poor people with bad credit histories. But because the banks were able to package these shitty loans and sell them investors as grade A investments, they didn't give a fuck.
What does this bill do? Does it not limit the size of investment banks?
Strawman......prove it with facts not what you just heared on Rush Limbaugh
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were required to have 55% of the loans they bought be for people who make less than the median income in the U.S.
Banks were threatened with revocation or non-approval of bank charters if they didn't meet specific minority and low income loan quotas.
So, you are wrong. As usual.
Are you telling me any loan to a person making less than median income is a bad loan? Really?
And if Fannie and Freddie were being forced to do such a thing against their will, tell me why it is that the investment banks did the exact same thing of their own free will?
Please show me the law that said what percentage of these loans had to be made to people that could not afford them.
Separate names with a comma.