Rolling Stone Exposes Bain and Romney...

[Toro]

Not that this really would have much of effect on "Welfare for Zionists and Not Americans" Jroc, but here's the truth...

Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis - CBS News

However, the evidence does not support the second explanation. First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA's rules and regulations. For example, "Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics." The largest losses had nothing to do with banks covered by the CRA.

Second, even if the banks themselves were subject to the CRA, not all loans that they made were covered by these rules. Even in banks where the CRA applied, most of the problems were in loans that did not fall under the CRA's jurisdiction.
Third, the CRA has been in existence since 1977. If the CRA was responsible, why didn't the crisis occur sooner? The timing simply doesn't match up.

Fourth, the CRA only applies to domestic firms, but the crisis occurred in many countries. If the CRA is the problem, why did countries that had nothing like the CRA experience similar problems?

Fifth, even if this story had any validity, both parties promoted an "ownership society," so blaming Democrats alone is about politics, not reality.

I agree. The CRA did not cause this debacle.

It clearly contributed to it.

If it did, it was a very, very minor cause.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html

 

[mudwhistle]

A great article on how Mitt Romney really made his money. Screwing working folks and leaving others with the bill.

And this is where we get to the hypocrisy at the heart of Mitt Romney. Everyone knows that he is fantastically rich, having scored great success, the legend goes, as a "turnaround specialist," a shrewd financial operator who revived moribund companies as a high-priced consultant for a storied Wall Street private equity firm. But what most voters don't know is the way Mitt Romney actually made his fortune: by borrowing vast sums of money that other people were forced to pay back. This is the plain, stark reality that has somehow eluded America's top political journalists for two consecutive presidential campaigns: Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time. In the past few decades, in fact, Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth.



Read more: Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Ah yes the totally unbiased, and Serious Journalism of Rolling Stone is Well known....err wait nm lol.

A left wing entertainment magazine says it, must be true.

lol

 

[Barb]

Rolling Stone had credibility in the 70s and the 80s, then it became obvious they went way too political, kind of like SNL.

Then pffffffffffffft.

Rolling Stone was political since its inception. You probably knew that. What manner of asshole are you anyway?

One that finds it extremely easy to piss off faggots like yourself.

Back then it wasn't noticeable. Now it's extremely noticeable. Maybe because RollingStone used to comment mostly on drugs, sex, and Rock & Roll instead of politics.

THE HISTORY OF ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE

Rolling Stone is a US-based magazine devoted to music, liberal politics, and popular culture that is published every two weeks. Rolling Stone was founded in San Francisco in 1967 by Jann Wenner, who is still editor and publisher, and music critic Ralph J. Gleason.
The magazine was known for its political coverage beginning in the 1970s, with the enigmatic and controversial gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson. Rolling Stone magazine changed its format in the 1990s to appeal to younger readers, often focusing on young television or film actors and pop music. This led to criticism that the magazine was emphasizing style over substance. In recent years, the magazine has resumed its traditional mix of content, including in-depth political stories, and has seen its circulation increase.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfnjebtzTmE]ROLLING STONE.mov - YouTube[/ame]

 

[mudwhistle]

Rolling Stone was political since its inception. You probably knew that. What manner of asshole are you anyway?

One that finds it extremely easy to piss off faggots like yourself.

Back then it wasn't noticeable. Now it's extremely noticeable. Maybe because RollingStone used to comment mostly on drugs, sex, and Rock & Roll instead of politics.

THE HISTORY OF ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE

Rolling Stone is a US-based magazine devoted to music, liberal politics, and popular culture that is published every two weeks. Rolling Stone was founded in San Francisco in 1967 by Jann Wenner, who is still editor and publisher, and music critic Ralph J. Gleason.
The magazine was known for its political coverage beginning in the 1970s, with the enigmatic and controversial gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson. Rolling Stone magazine changed its format in the 1990s to appeal to younger readers, often focusing on young television or film actors and pop music. This led to criticism that the magazine was emphasizing style over substance. In recent years, the magazine has resumed its traditional mix of content, including in-depth political stories, and has seen its circulation increase.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfnjebtzTmE]ROLLING STONE.mov - YouTube[/ame]

"We've Heard It All Before" - YouTube

 

[buckeye45_73]

No idiot the federal government promoted and pushed banks to lend to people who couldn't afford it then backed up those loans with tax payer money this is the idiocy of it all. Under normal circumstances banks wouldn't have given all those bad loans but what did they have to lose? The government bailed them out...Big government is the problem, too much cronyism the government as too much power. The hand of the federal government in everything and Banks don't want foreclosed homes idiot

All you are doing here is exposing your ignorance of the CRA.

The fact is, after the reforms of the 1930's, banking was stable for 50 years....

Until some geniuses decided to start deregulating them.

The banks didn't collapse because they were letting poor people buy bungalos...

They collapsed because the middle class were buying McMansions, and walking away from them when their value bottomed out.

And who weakend the regulations? Why were they weakened? Yep, affirmative action housing, they wanted more minorities to own homes, so they weakened the regulations, which meant more poor and middle class people could buy homes they couldnt afford.
Just ask Andre Cuomo, he predicted there would be some foreclosures, but didnt count on it crashing, but for him thank God a republican was in office when the shit hit the fan.

 

[ecinicola]

THE Dems want you to listen and believe every word they are saying. Its to their benefit, not yours. If you are so gullible as to believe everything they say against Romney, then they have gained what they want, not what we need.
The bottom line and only thing to know or focus on, is that we need a change and we need this distruction Obama and democrats outta office this Nov.
I am not a republican or Democrat. I am an independent and my priority is what we the people need, not what the Party needs or the Politicians. We are in big big trouble in this country and with the economy and Obama has had 4 long years to do something and he has only made matters worse. He will continue to make matters worse and you can believe that!!!!! Vote him out.

 

[JoeB131]

I blamed the federal government in general both parties take part in cronyism and the CRA was part of the problem

Except the CRA had nothing to diwth the crash... obviously yo ucan't read or don't want to.

The crash was caused because the banks made sub-prime mortgages to people who had incomes, but not adequate ones to really cover the mortgages. Most of these were middle class families buying McMansions they didn't need on the hope of flipping them in five years.

The builders built more of them than were needed (there's a whole roe of half-finished McMansions near where I live I pass buy every day) and the value of them were overpriced and everyone got caught up because no one really said, "Wait a minute, these sky rocketing values are out of control."

It had nothing to do with the CRA, which merely said banks couldn't "red-line", which is to refuse loans to people who lived in certain neighborhoods that were considered poor even if they otherwise qualified for a loan.

 

[JoeB131]

THE Dems want you to listen and believe every word they are saying. Its to their benefit, not yours. If you are so gullible as to believe everything they say against Romney, then they have gained what they want, not what we need.
The bottom line and only thing to know or focus on, is that we need a change and we need this distruction Obama and democrats outta office this Nov.
I am not a republican or Democrat. I am an independent and my priority is what we the people need, not what the Party needs or the Politicians. We are in big big trouble in this country and with the economy and Obama has had 4 long years to do something and he has only made matters worse. He will continue to make matters worse and you can believe that!!!!! Vote him out.

Both parties want you to listen to what they says and believe it.

But really, the stuff on Romney is pretty well documented. He was a dishonest businessman, he only "saved" the Olympics with a big federal bailout, and he was such an awful governor they ran him out on a rail.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

THE Dems want you to listen and believe every word they are saying. Its to their benefit, not yours. If you are so gullible as to believe everything they say against Romney, then they have gained what they want, not what we need.
The bottom line and only thing to know or focus on, is that we need a change and we need this distruction Obama and democrats outta office this Nov.
I am not a republican or Democrat. I am an independent and my priority is what we the people need, not what the Party needs or the Politicians. We are in big big trouble in this country and with the economy and Obama has had 4 long years to do something and he has only made matters worse. He will continue to make matters worse and you can believe that!!!!! Vote him out.

Those dims better not talk bad 'bout Lord Romney! You know anything they say bad about that man just cant be true. Lord Romney is a kind and gentle job creator who has Blessed us with his Good Will and who loves his wife and children. Without good men like him we'd all be killing each other just to get by. So if Rolling Stoner or any other of them stupeet libruls has anything bad to say about Lord Romney you know - in your heart - that its wrong.

 

[Jroc]

I blamed the federal government in general both parties take part in cronyism and the CRA was part of the problem

Except the CRA had nothing to diwth the crash... obviously yo ucan't read or don't want to.

The crash was caused because the banks made sub-prime mortgages to people who had incomes, but not adequate ones to really cover the mortgages. Most of these were middle class families buying McMansions they didn't need on the hope of flipping them in five years.

The builders built more of them than were needed (there's a whole roe of half-finished McMansions near where I live I pass buy every day) and the value of them were overpriced and everyone got caught up because no one really said, "Wait a minute, these sky rocketing values are out of control."

It had nothing to do with the CRA, which merely said banks couldn't "red-line", which is to refuse loans to people who lived in certain neighborhoods that were considered poor even if they otherwise qualified for a loan.

The free market was manipulated starting with the federal government. I don't have to read your CBS opinion piece, I could find 100 others to refute everything that's in it. If the free market were allowed to work, people wouldn’t have gotten those loans, and those banks would have been allowed to go into bankruptcy instead of getting bailed out. Politicians and big government are the problem

 

[JoeB131]

The free market was manipulated starting with the federal government. I don't have to read your CBS opinion piece, I could find 100 others to refute everything that's in it. If the free market were allowed to work, people wouldn’t have gotten those loans, and those banks would have been allowed to go into bankruptcy instead of getting bailed out. Politicians and big government are the problem

NO, big greedy corporations are the problem.

The banks were HAPPY to make those loans to the McMansion buying middle class - again- the real cause of the problem - because they knew it was a no-lose scenario.

Either those folks would keep making their payments, or they could respossess and sell to another sucker.

Where it fell apart was that the NON-CRA loans to the middle class McMansion buyers were bundled up and sold off as stocks, when in fact, their value was based on the amount of the mortgage and not the amount of the value of the property. That's why those loans became toxic and brought down the whole system when home values started to contract in 2006.

 

[BillyV]

THE Dems want you to listen and believe every word they are saying. Its to their benefit, not yours. If you are so gullible as to believe everything they say against Romney, then they have gained what they want, not what we need.
The bottom line and only thing to know or focus on, is that we need a change and we need this distruction Obama and democrats outta office this Nov.
I am not a republican or Democrat. I am an independent and my priority is what we the people need, not what the Party needs or the Politicians. We are in big big trouble in this country and with the economy and Obama has had 4 long years to do something and he has only made matters worse. He will continue to make matters worse and you can believe that!!!!! Vote him out.

Both parties want you to listen to what they says and believe it.

But really, the stuff on Romney is pretty well documented. He was a dishonest businessman, he only "saved" the Olympics with a big federal bailout, and he was such an awful governor they ran him out on a rail.

Well, he had some big challenges in the Olympics:

Romney inherited a $400 million deficit, but the stakes rose exponentially with the Sept. 11 attacks. Suddenly, five months before the competition, the Olympics were viewed as one of the next big terrorist targets, and there was a rush to raise and spend millions more for security.
Romney's Olympic Legacy: Savior Or Self-Promoter? : NPR

One shouldn't forget the timing; just a few months after 9/11. Is anyone really surprised that security costs would go through the roof?

Mr. Romney has responded to criticism about the federal share of the Games by saying that taxpayer support for the 2002 Olympics was less than in previous Games — only 18 percent of the budget, compared with 50 percent for the Games at Lake Placid in 1980.
And part of the reason the federal share was not higher, people involved with the Games said, was that Mr. Romney was so successful in working the private sector.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19romney.html?pagewanted=all

So yes, he did get federal money, but so have all Olympic Games. Considering the unique challenge, he seemed to do pretty well. And according to most sources, he was able to bring costs under control and produce a surplus, no doubt a result of his business background as a turnaround specialist and cost cutter:

The Olympic 'Cheapskate'
In fact, Bullock says, Romney was a "cheapskate" desperate to erase the $400 million operating budget deficit and restore confidence in the organizing effort. He traveled the country himself trying to reassure skittish corporate sponsors, raising $800 million, according to Bullock.
Romney also slashed spending, even canceling catering for board meetings and making sure TV cameras were on hand when he decided to sell pizza at his first board function as CEO. He paid $5 per pizza, cut each pie into eight slices, charged a dollar a slice, and ended up with a $3 profit per pizza.
"That type of mentality and message reverberated throughout the organization," Fraser Bullock says. "Everybody knew that's what we were going to do. We were going to be responsible with every penny."
The Salt Lake games ended with a $100 million surplus in its operating budget and rave reviews from Olympic officials and even cynical journalists.
Some called it the best organized Winter Olympics ever.

Romney's Olympic Legacy: Savior Or Self-Promoter? : NPR

Given the state of the Federal budget, it may be that Mitt Romney is the perfect choice for identifying and eliminating waste at a national level. He certainly has the credentials for it, and if the alternative is trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, I'll take my chances with the "Weird Mormon Robot" (which, by the way, is clearly not a bigoted expression).

 

[JoeB131]

The Federal Government ponied up 1.5 BILLION to pay for the SLC Olympics, more than all the other Olympics held in the US Combined.

Remember, the only good welfare is corporate welfare.

 

[BillyV]

The Federal Government ponied up 1.5 BILLION to pay for the SLC Olympics, more than all the other Olympics held in the US Combined.

Remember, the only good welfare is corporate welfare.

Well, yes, if you're reading Media Matters, that $1.5 billion is all assigned to the Olympics. However, that's not the whole story, is it?

When various transportation and other works projects are included, the federal government spent an estimated $1.5 billion from the time the Games were awarded to Salt Lake City in 1995 until they took place in 2002.

10 years after Salt Lake City Olympics, questions about Romney’s contributions - The Washington Post

From 1995. When did Mitt get there? 1999? A lot of the transportation costs were invested in "light rail". I thought everyone loved light rail?

According to the New York Times, the federal share was quite a bit less in direct funding:

But the federal government’s contributions, thanks to Mr. Romney, were also immense. By the time the Games were over, about $342 million in federal money to plan and stage the Winter Games had flowed into Utah, a record outlay for the Olympics and nearly $50 million more in constant dollars than was spent for the Atlanta Olympics, according to a report in 2001 by the Government Accountability Office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19romney.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1346763615-cHwH5/8zjDkOBLsRPu08Mg

The bottom line for me is this: Of the two presidential candidates, one has shown an ability to use federal funding to get positive results, and the other has shown the ability to waste trillions on failure. You decide.

 

[JoeB131]

The bottom line for me is this: Of the two presidential candidates, one has shown an ability to use federal funding to get positive results, and the other has shown the ability to waste trillions on failure. You decide.

Who said the Olympics were a Positive Result?

The taxpayers were out 1.5 Billion dollars for an Olympics NOBODY actually watched. The Mormons got a shitload of free infrastructure the rest of us paid for, a few of Mitt's rich buddies made a killling on contracts.

And it never would have been necessary if Mitt's fellow LDS Cultists hadn't bribed the IOC into awarding Olympics that SLC never should have gotten in the first place.

 

[Jroc]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8joHLhKIBI]Former Olympians Rally Behind Mitt Romney For Saving the 2002 Utah Olympics - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JoeB131]

Yawn... so what?

Hey, without using Google or Wiki, name something really important that happened in the 2002 Olympics?

I mean, the Winter Olympics are the boring ones they put in off years because no one cared about them. Unless you have Ice Skaters kneecapping each other, who cares?

So the Federal Government got to subsidize a big commercial for the Mormon Church, and we are happy about that? I'm not.

 

[BillyV]

The bottom line for me is this: Of the two presidential candidates, one has shown an ability to use federal funding to get positive results, and the other has shown the ability to waste trillions on failure. You decide.

Who said the Olympics were a Positive Result?

The taxpayers were out 1.5 Billion dollars for an Olympics NOBODY actually watched. The Mormons got a shitload of free infrastructure the rest of us paid for, a few of Mitt's rich buddies made a killling on contracts.

And it never would have been necessary if Mitt's fellow LDS Cultists hadn't bribed the IOC into awarding Olympics that SLC never should have gotten in the first place.

Well, let's see; first of all, a lot of people around the world watched, as evidenced by the numbers of ski visitors that have come to the area since 2002, up 42% today vs pre-Olympics. Also, there's the additional 3 million visitors to the area every year; even if you assume each spends only $300, that's about $1 billion per year in added revenues, much of which would generate federally taxable income. I'd say it's likely the feds have already made a return on their investment.

Yawn... so what?

Hey, without using Google or Wiki, name something really important that happened in the 2002 Olympics?

I mean, the Winter Olympics are the boring ones they put in off years because no one cared about them. Unless you have Ice Skaters kneecapping each other, who cares?

So the Federal Government got to subsidize a big commercial for the Mormon Church, and we are happy about that? I'm not.

You know, if you could look past your bigotry for just a minute, you would realize that these are more than just sporting events, they are national pride events broadcast internationally. Especially given the short time between this event and 9/11, it was of critical importance that the US have an internationally successful event such as this. Who can forget the World Trade Center flag being brought in at the beginning accompanied by the Star Spangled Banner (yes, I know, sung (really well) by those creepy Mormons)? If you're an American, that scene moved you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NgA-tPk_hU]The Star-Spangled Banner - Mormon Tabernacle Choir - Utah Symphony - 2002 Winter Olympics - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JoeB131]

So you are saying that we needed to spend 1.5 billion on a "feel good" commercial because our feelings were hurt? Really?

Besides the fact Mitt had no idea 9/11 was going to happen when he squeezed 1.5 billion out of the feds to subsidize his Mormon's buddies and their publicity stunt gone wrong.

No one I knew watched the Olympics that year or cared that much. Most of us were dealing with the first of Bush's two horrible recessions.

 

[emptystep]

Former Olympians Rally Behind Mitt Romney For Saving the 2002 Utah Olympics - YouTube

Mitt Romney-Helmed Olympics Outsourced Uniforms To Burma
Mitt Romney-Helmed Olympics Outsourced Uniforms To Burma

Congress was up in arms Thursday over the discovery that the U.S. team's uniforms for the opening ceremony of this year's Olympic games were manufactured in China -- snubbing the nation's textile industry at a time when it has yet to recover from the economic downturn.
....
Perhaps most embarrassing, after receiving emailed protests from more than 1,000 activists, the media relations department at the Salt Lake Organizing Committee confused Burma and Myanmar as two separate countries.

"The torch relay clothes were NOT made in Burma. They were manufactured in Myanmar," the organizing committee responded. "In fact they were made in the exact same factory that produces clothes for GAP, North Face and other major clothing labels."

Both Gap and North Face denied at the time that they purchase products manufactured in Burma.

After activists correctly identified Burma and Myanmar as the same country, the committee apologized for what it referred to as “misinformation” and confirmed that both the pants and top of the uniform were produced at a textile plant in Burma/Myanmar.

The Romney campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.