Fox news : Everyone I spoke to at occupy DC said they were voting for Ron Paul?

[ClosedCaption]

Would you please post that video in this thread, maybe even in the first post?

Judge Napolitano. DC Occupy Wall street. getting hijacked from Ron Paul. - YouTube

Awesome

they cant make up their minds if they want to discredit the protestors or claim them

Yeah, its hard to label a group that has diverse opinions, but that little fact wont stop the righties from trying really hard

 

[eflatminor]

Deregulation caused this mess

And that sums up the way you think...or should I say, the way you hope others will think for you. Sad really. Oh, and complete bullshit as the amount of regulations, local and national, across all industries, has increased steadily over the last 40+ years and dramatically over the last 10. When governments meddle, shit goes bad...every time.

Well consider this, Canada really didn't suffer from the bank and credit meltdown, why? Because of their regulations that are enforced.

Due North: Canada’s Marvelous Mortgage and Banking System

Bottom Line: Taken together, the features and regulations of banks in Canada outlined above create a healthy and sound “pro-lender” environment absent of political motivations for outcomes like greater homeownership, compared to the often politically motivated “pro-borrower” and “pro-homeowner” policies of the United States. While Canada’s banking system has promoted responsible borrowing and prudent lending and underwriting practices with little politically motivated interference, the U.S. banking system seems to have encouraged excessive lending to risky borrowers because of the political obsession with homeownership.

Due North: Canada

Look at the following chart! And some people want less regulations on the financial sector!

Your assumption is false. Canadian banks didn't suffer like those in the US because Canada was not subject to laws like the Community Reinvestment Act and other government pressures to loan money to poor people. Canadian banks did not have their loans backed by Freddie/Fannie, which means they had to actually underwrite their prospective customers. Lastly, Canadian banks did not face a Federal Reserve dumping so much money on them that they have no need to actually make money through loans and other services.

Canada may have had token regulations and laws designed to protect consumers, but then so did we. What Canada did NOT have was a government meddling in their core business for political gain. That is why they are not suffering today and we are.

 

[kiwiman127]

And that sums up the way you think...or should I say, the way you hope others will think for you. Sad really. Oh, and complete bullshit as the amount of regulations, local and national, across all industries, has increased steadily over the last 40+ years and dramatically over the last 10. When governments meddle, shit goes bad...every time.

Well consider this, Canada really didn't suffer from the bank and credit meltdown, why? Because of their regulations that are enforced.

Due North: Canada’s Marvelous Mortgage and Banking System

Bottom Line: Taken together, the features and regulations of banks in Canada outlined above create a healthy and sound “pro-lender” environment absent of political motivations for outcomes like greater homeownership, compared to the often politically motivated “pro-borrower” and “pro-homeowner” policies of the United States. While Canada’s banking system has promoted responsible borrowing and prudent lending and underwriting practices with little politically motivated interference, the U.S. banking system seems to have encouraged excessive lending to risky borrowers because of the political obsession with homeownership.

Due North: Canada

Look at the following chart! And some people want less regulations on the financial sector!

Your assumption is false. Canadian banks didn't suffer like those in the US because Canada was not subject to laws like the Community Reinvestment Act and other government pressures to loan money to poor people. Canadian banks did not have their loans backed by Freddie/Fannie, which means they had to actually underwrite their prospective customers. Lastly, Canadian banks did not face a Federal Reserve dumping so much money on them that they have no need to actually make money through loans and other services.

Canada may have had token regulations and laws designed to protect consumers, but then so did we. What Canada did NOT have was a government meddling in their core business for political gain. That is why they are not suffering today and we are.

Community Reinvestment Act?

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

"The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Deregulation caused this mess.

To pretend it didnt is how you guys opperate

Wrong. It was an amalgamation of problems that caused this mess. Deregulation being one of the least. Idiotic Americans being the biggest problem.

Take the BP oil spill as an example. We had all of the regulation imaginable to prevent that disaster, but it was because the regulation was being ignored by the government watchdogs that it still happened. Regulation is meaningless if it's not enforced.

And come on, if someone is going to make a major purchase like buying a house, you would think that they would do just the tiniest bit of research on the different types of loans. But because the American people were more concerned with living like kings on wages that couldn't support it, and have the financial IQ of a gnat, they all went belly up.

Add on top of that the securities trading, gas prices, outsourcing, the value of the dollar, and more issues that I can't think of right now, and THAT'S why we're in this mess. If you think regulation that never would have been enforced would have prevented all that, then I suggest you take time from arguing unsupported talking points and go do some research on the current recession and what got us here.

Deregulation caused it.


There would have been NO hosuing bubble if the banks were not allowed to repackage these loans and troll them into securities that had been perfectly safe in the past.

The broker rules were held up by the Bush SEC so that banks could hire and train anyone they wanted to as a broker.

Most people in the world were unaware that the rules had NOT BEEN IMPLIMENTED by the Bush SEC.

The brokers were trained well enought ot sell the securities but not well enough to know what was really in them.

Tell us everything you know about the broker rules ?

Even if such regulation existed do you honestly think anyone would have enforced it? The same thing would have happened anyways because Washington would have paid off to look the other way. And Washington would have gladly looked the other way, just like they did with the BP disaster.

And to think that the housing market crash was the sole driving force behind the recession is being incredibly ignorant.

 

[eflatminor]

Well consider this, Canada really didn't suffer from the bank and credit meltdown, why? Because of their regulations that are enforced.

Due North: Canada’s Marvelous Mortgage and Banking System

Bottom Line: Taken together, the features and regulations of banks in Canada outlined above create a healthy and sound “pro-lender” environment absent of political motivations for outcomes like greater homeownership, compared to the often politically motivated “pro-borrower” and “pro-homeowner” policies of the United States. While Canada’s banking system has promoted responsible borrowing and prudent lending and underwriting practices with little politically motivated interference, the U.S. banking system seems to have encouraged excessive lending to risky borrowers because of the political obsession with homeownership.

Due North: Canada

Look at the following chart! And some people want less regulations on the financial sector!

Your assumption is false. Canadian banks didn't suffer like those in the US because Canada was not subject to laws like the Community Reinvestment Act and other government pressures to loan money to poor people. Canadian banks did not have their loans backed by Freddie/Fannie, which means they had to actually underwrite their prospective customers. Lastly, Canadian banks did not face a Federal Reserve dumping so much money on them that they have no need to actually make money through loans and other services.

Canada may have had token regulations and laws designed to protect consumers, but then so did we. What Canada did NOT have was a government meddling in their core business for political gain. That is why they are not suffering today and we are.

Community Reinvestment Act?

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

"The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek

The fuck it didn't. And besides, the CRA is one of many laws and regulations that pressured banks to make loans they otherwise would not have. Have you forgotten about all the bullshit talk of the "American dream of home ownership"?

Bottom line, US banks made subprime loans because the government was telling them to do so and more importantly, they knew Feddie, Frannie, and the Fed had their backs with taxpayer money if those loans ever went bad...and they were right. THAT is the heart of the problem....government meddling in the business.

Canada had none of those pressures nor did they have assurance of a bailout. THAT is why they're doing fine today.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H47tHjR5oA]Occupy DC invades Newseum, hates on Ron Paul & Alex Jones - YouTube[/ame]

 

[oreo]

They are all voting for Ron Paul? Where is the love for Herman Cain? How is this even possible?

Why would fox news even run a piece like this?


Video here : Fox news : Everyone I spoke to at occupy DC said they were voting for Ron Paul?

NOPE--there is absolutely no way I believe that one-- I doubt you could find one registered Republican in the crowd--much less a conservative.

 

[GHook93]

They are all voting for Ron Paul? Where is the love for Herman Cain? How is this even possible?

Why would fox news even run a piece like this?


Video here : Fox news : Everyone I spoke to at occupy DC said they were voting for Ron Paul?

That just show how little these people really know! They want more taxation, more spending, more regulation and more protectionism, yet if Ron Paul was true to his word (as a porker I think he is dishonest), they none of these things would take place!

 

[oreo]

Occupy DC invades Newseum, hates on Ron Paul & Alex Jones - YouTube

Thanks for the video--YES they stated they hate RON PAUL. So where FN picked this one up is not CORRECT.

Very telling video--BTW.

 

[kiwiman127]

Your assumption is false. Canadian banks didn't suffer like those in the US because Canada was not subject to laws like the Community Reinvestment Act and other government pressures to loan money to poor people. Canadian banks did not have their loans backed by Freddie/Fannie, which means they had to actually underwrite their prospective customers. Lastly, Canadian banks did not face a Federal Reserve dumping so much money on them that they have no need to actually make money through loans and other services.

Canada may have had token regulations and laws designed to protect consumers, but then so did we. What Canada did NOT have was a government meddling in their core business for political gain. That is why they are not suffering today and we are.

Community Reinvestment Act?

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

"The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the sub prime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with sub prime crisis - BusinessWeek

The fuck it didn't. And besides, the CRA is one of many laws and regulations that pressured banks to make loans they otherwise would not have. Have you forgotten about all the bullshit talk of the "American dream of home ownership"?

Bottom line, US banks made subprime loans because the government was telling them to do so and more importantly, they knew Feddie, Frannie, and the Fed had their backs with taxpayer money if those loans ever went bad...and they were right. THAT is the heart of the problem....government meddling in the business.

Canada had none of those pressures nor did they have assurance of a bailout. THAT is why they're doing fine today.

From a link from a previous post on this thread:

"Bottom Line: Taken together, the features and regulations of banks in Canada outlined above create a healthy and sound “pro-lender” environment absent of political motivations for outcomes like greater homeownership, compared to the often politically motivated “pro-borrower” and “pro-homeowner” policies of the United States. While Canada’s banking system has promoted responsible borrowing and prudent lending and underwriting practices with little politically motivated interference, the U.S. banking system seems to have encouraged excessive lending to risky borrowers because of the political obsession with homeownership

Look, I'm not saying government wasn't involved by BOTH political parties re; the sub-prime/mortgage disaster I'm simply defending sensible strongly enforced regulation. More so for the protection of general society, such as customer protection and basic regulation for the protection of the environment accompanied with very stiff fines/jail time. Unfetter capitalism has historically proven not to be a good idea.
Sooner or later, we have to stop bending over and giving them everything they want. They have run amok in the near past and we all pay.

 

[kiwiman127]

Community Reinvestment Act?

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

"The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the sub prime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with sub prime crisis - BusinessWeek

The fuck it didn't. And besides, the CRA is one of many laws and regulations that pressured banks to make loans they otherwise would not have. Have you forgotten about all the bullshit talk of the "American dream of home ownership"?

Bottom line, US banks made subprime loans because the government was telling them to do so and more importantly, they knew Feddie, Frannie, and the Fed had their backs with taxpayer money if those loans ever went bad...and they were right. THAT is the heart of the problem....government meddling in the business.

Canada had none of those pressures nor did they have assurance of a bailout. THAT is why they're doing fine today.

From a link from a previous post on this thread:

"Bottom Line: Taken together, the features and regulations of banks in Canada outlined above create a healthy and sound “pro-lender” environment absent of political motivations for outcomes like greater homeownership, compared to the often politically motivated “pro-borrower” and “pro-homeowner” policies of the United States. While Canada’s banking system has promoted responsible borrowing and prudent lending and underwriting practices with little politically motivated interference, the U.S. banking system seems to have encouraged excessive lending to risky borrowers because of the political obsession with homeownership

Look, I'm not saying government wasn't involved by BOTH political parties re; the sub-prime/mortgage disaster I'm simply defending sensible strongly enforced regulation. More so for the protection of general society, such as customer protection and basic regulation for the protection of the environment accompanied with very stiff fines/jail time. Unfetter capitalism has historically proven not to be a good idea.
Sooner or later, we have to stop bending over and giving them everything they want. They have run amok in the near past and we all pay.

Also, why do you disagree with with an offical of the Fed, who probably had the numbers and facts at his fingert tips or a law Prof? Why not prove them wrong,,with facts.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Would you please post that video in this thread, maybe even in the first post?

Judge Napolitano. DC Occupy Wall street. getting hijacked from Ron Paul. - YouTube

Thank you for the link.

I just watched it!

Sorry I didn't comment further earlier but I had to help this guy who's car wasn't working right out front.

I was going to say I enjoyed the video.

Like I was saying earlier in another thread that if these people in the occupy movement would have directed their attacks at the politicians (in both parties) that put the regulations in place which allowed for wallstreet and the banks to gamble then get bailed out by tax money the teapartiers would have been standing right beside them. Instead they have a greed and envy message directed at what many in the tea party think are the wrong culprit. The fact that many teapartiers and many OWS protestors support Ron Paul tells me that I was right in that analasys.

It is also interesting to see that there are some people being paid to protest.

 

[Stephanie]

Judge Napolitano. DC Occupy Wall street. getting hijacked from Ron Paul. - YouTube

Awesome

they cant make up their minds if they want to discredit the protestors or claim them

Yeah, its hard to label a group that has diverse opinions, but that little fact wont stop the righties from trying really hard

Is that what you call all that nonesense, DIVERSE OPINIONS..that is ONE REASON no one takes them seriously...sheesh.

 

[eflatminor]

Community Reinvestment Act?

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

"The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the sub prime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with sub prime crisis - BusinessWeek

The fuck it didn't. And besides, the CRA is one of many laws and regulations that pressured banks to make loans they otherwise would not have. Have you forgotten about all the bullshit talk of the "American dream of home ownership"?

Bottom line, US banks made subprime loans because the government was telling them to do so and more importantly, they knew Feddie, Frannie, and the Fed had their backs with taxpayer money if those loans ever went bad...and they were right. THAT is the heart of the problem....government meddling in the business.

Canada had none of those pressures nor did they have assurance of a bailout. THAT is why they're doing fine today.

From a link from a previous post on this thread:

"Bottom Line: Taken together, the features and regulations of banks in Canada outlined above create a healthy and sound “pro-lender” environment absent of political motivations for outcomes like greater homeownership, compared to the often politically motivated “pro-borrower” and “pro-homeowner” policies of the United States. While Canada’s banking system has promoted responsible borrowing and prudent lending and underwriting practices with little politically motivated interference, the U.S. banking system seems to have encouraged excessive lending to risky borrowers because of the political obsession with homeownership

Look, I'm not saying government wasn't involved by BOTH political parties re; the sub-prime/mortgage disaster I'm simply defending sensible strongly enforced regulation. More so for the protection of general society, such as customer protection and basic regulation for the protection of the environment accompanied with very stiff fines/jail time. Unfetter capitalism has historically proven not to be a good idea.
Sooner or later, we have to stop bending over and giving them everything they want. They have run amok in the near past and we all pay.

First, show me when we've had unfetter capitalism and then tell me where and why it wasn't a good idea. Hint...we've never seen unfetter capitalism...never. My point is you don't need federal regulators as long as the government ensures we are free and we have equal justice. If a bank screws you over, you can sue them and they won't be protected by their regulatory protective blanket. And, you'd have real choice in banking because all those regulations serve to keep small competitors from entering the market. Bottom line, we don't need more regulations, we need CONSEQUENCES for actions that harm others.

That said, I absolutely agree would should stop the bailout, loopholes, and all crony fascism. Limiting the government to their Constitutional confines is the only way that's going to happen.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Awesome

they cant make up their minds if they want to discredit the protestors or claim them

Yeah, its hard to label a group that has diverse opinions, but that little fact wont stop the righties from trying really hard

Is that what you call all that nonesense, DIVERSE OPINIONS..that is ONE REASON no one takes them seriously...sheesh.

I don't get your gripe. You dislike diverse opinions? Diverse opinions aren't taken seriously?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Occupy DC invades Newseum, hates on Ron Paul & Alex Jones - YouTube

Thanks for the video--YES they stated they hate RON PAUL. So where FN picked this one up is not CORRECT.

Very telling video--BTW.

Ahaha it's funny to see repubs try to dismiss reporting they dint like and agree with YouTube vids they like. Btw...very telling post.

 

[uscitizen]

Nah. That's BS. There's more crossover between the original TP and OWS than a lot of people here think, but they're not ALL Ron Paul supporters. That's crazy talk.

LMAO!
You have it from Faux Nooz folks.
OWC'ers are Paulists.

 

[Stephanie]

Nah. That's BS. There's more crossover between the original TP and OWS than a lot of people here think, but they're not ALL Ron Paul supporters. That's crazy talk.

LMAO!
You have it from Faux Nooz folks.
OWC'ers are Paulists.

I would bet money a lot of them are. Paulbots are just as rabid as Obamabots. and some are just as nutty

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Occupy DC invades Newseum, hates on Ron Paul & Alex Jones - YouTube

Thanks for the video--YES they stated they hate RON PAUL. So where FN picked this one up is not CORRECT.

Very telling video--BTW.

Ahaha it's funny to see repubs try to dismiss reporting they dint like and agree with YouTube vids they like. Btw...very telling post.

Well when the YouTube video proves that the "reporting" was incorrect there's no problem. That being said, there are indeed Ron Paul supporters going to these rallies. I believe they're trying to build some kind of coalition with the Occupiers for going against the Federal Reserve. But as that video proves not all of them are Ron Paul supporters as Fox News tried to imply.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You and I know that fox never said or implied they were ALL Paul supporters.