Tea Party "terrorists"?

[Truthmatters]

Federal Reserve Board data show that:
• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.



• Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.



• Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.


Read more: Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy

 

[NYcarbineer]

who crashed the world economy in 2008?

Jimmy Carter started Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. You've been on this board long enough to know that.

Basically it expanded--like the Federal Government ALWAYS expands programs--to where they thought it would be a great idea to co-sign our names to 50% of the mortgages in this country. This while the CLINTON administration was pressuring banks to lower their lending practices. No down payment--no collateral and a less than a desirable credit rating and sub-prime loaning--could buy you a 400K custom home. Why? Because they had 310 million American co-signers. It was Robert Rubin and Allen Greenspan that fully supported and defended Wall Street's derivitives market. This where Wall Street bankers bought up these mortgage backed securities as fast as they could and then started trading them in the "mother of all casino's"--hedge funds aka the derivitives markets.


Basically the Federal Government built a house of cards that collapsed leaving the American taxpayer holding the bag. That's what happened to our economy--and it started long-long ago.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

Fannie and Freddie are private companies. All of the bad outcomes related to Fannie and Freddie were the result of INSUFFICIENT GOVERNMENT REGULATION of the private sector.

You know, the kind of deregulation that conservatives live for.

 

[Full-Auto]

How many sub prime where written by entities with NO connection to the program?


Most of them you silly person

Many, Understanding the threat of lawsuits.

 

[Londoner]

The Tea Party is a corporate invention designed to create a populist revolution around policies that benefit the concentrated wealth that has collected over America's political and media machinery. Any time Washington acts to limit the unchecked power of corporations, it's called socialism. (Remember: socialism is now defined as anything Washington does that isn't a tax break or deregulation. This essentially gives large special interests complete control over government and the economy. The Tea Party has mythologized special interests and concentrated wealth into noble "job creators". But... these "noble job creators" don't use tax breaks to create jobs; they ship jobs overseas. They cut American jobs in favor of Asian sweat shop labor. They are job killers.)

The goal of the tea party: protect concentrated wealth from having to pay the fair share of taxes and submit to democratic controls.

The tea party is two tiered.

Tier 1 - corporate funded leadership: Dick Army is one of the point men. He sits between the monopolists in charge of health insurance & energy and the disseminators of information - Talk Radio, blogosphere, FOX News. The disseminators are paid to scream socialism any time the power of the wealthy over government and the economy is threatened. Talk Radio's job is to convince America that the concentrated wealth and political power of corporations represents "freedom" or "the people" in their perennial struggle against socialism. They do this by constantly spewing tired anecdotes about evil government. Problem is: the corporations own government; therefore, they must find uneducated people and civil war re-enactors to support them - i.e., passionate patriots who are easily fooled.

Tier 2: useful idiots. People who don't understand that the anti-government rhetoric is designed to prevent the serfs from exerting any control over the new special interest corporate state.

 

[oreo]

How many sub prime where written by entities with NO connection to the program?


Most of them you silly person

And YOU did read your own linked article--didn't you?

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 12, 1999. The Act provided an 18-month deadline for the adoption of implementing rules, but from 1999 until 2005, the rule-writing effort stalled repeatedly. On Oct. 13, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Regulatory Relief Act, which added the requirement that the Commission and the Board issue the proposed rules jointly, and seek the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

 

[Bfgrn]

what? you afraid yo sugar tit gonna dry up?

WTF is wrong with you willow? You imply by your racially infested ' yo sugar tit' that cuts to Social Security and Medicare only target lazy black people. The drastic cuts to Social Security and Medicare the Teapbulicans passed in the House would be devastating to elderly Americans living on fixed incomes. What can an 80 year old person do willow? Start a new career or get a job?

They shouldn't be called 'entitlement' programs. They are EARNED programs. American workers that retire had money taken from every paycheck their entire working life. They EARNED it willow. Stealing from grandma is now the Teapbulicans mantra.

Did you watch the proceedings and the debate? The Republican Senators repeatedly asked the dimocrat senators to point to one single solitary paragraph in the Republican bills that said they were going to end social security and medicare. dimocrats could not produce ONE. You know what the Republicans pointed out though??? that the dimocrats had already stolen 960/500 BIllion dollars from medicare for obiedoodle care.. yep.. those old dimocrat adam's apples were a kabobbin along

willow, does the Affordable Care Act reduce Medicare benefits? NO it doesn't.

And you are accusing Democrats of cutting spending willow??? But, but, but...I thought Democrats only spend and tax!

The Affordable Care Act Does Not Cut Medicare Benefits

Health care reform does not cut Medicare benefits. In fact, health care reform expands Medicare coverage, by eliminating cost-sharing for preventive services, adding a yearly wellness visit, limiting some cost-sharing in private Medicare plans, and closing the Part D "Donut Hole." It also improves the solvency of the Medicare program itself. Reform does, however, change some Medicare payment policies. Some misstated reports of these changes have resulted in exaggerating public fear of cuts to Medicare benefits. This Alert summarizes the changes in certain Medicare payments in order to clarify that the Medicare reforms do not reduce Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.

The Affordable Care Act achieves savings in the Medicare program through a series of payment reforms, service delivery innovations, and increased efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Speaker John Boehner’s new budget proposal would essentially require, as the price of raising the debt ceiling again early next year, a choice between deep cuts in the years immediately ahead in Social Security and Medicare benefits for current retirees, repeal of health reform’s coverage expansions, or wholesale evisceration of basic assistance programs for vulnerable Americans.

The plan is, thus, tantamount to a form of “class warfare.” If enacted, it could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history.

 

[Truthmatters]

How many sub prime where written by entities with NO connection to the program?


Most of them you silly person

And YOU did read your own linked article--didn't you?

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 12, 1999. The Act provided an 18-month deadline for the adoption of implementing rules, but from 1999 until 2005, the rule-writing effort stalled repeatedly. On Oct. 13, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Regulatory Relief Act, which added the requirement that the Commission and the Board issue the proposed rules jointly, and seek the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

read my signature adn click the link in it

 

[kaz]

So no one disputes the substance of what he said?

Y'all just needed another good cry, and this is today's excuse?

lolol

Inflicting less government on the American people will cause them irreparable harm. It's too stupid to refute.

That's not what it means. The tea party would see the country default if they can't get their way.

That is the harm being talked about. Try again.

I've asked you libbies over and over when the interest payments are $20 billion a month and tax revenue is $200 billion a month why we would default. You haven't answered the question, you just repeated the lie as if you did. Try again.

 

[Caroljo]

That's pretty silly.

What is so silly about it Toro? If you actually harm and even KILL Americans, WHAT would you call it Toro?

The “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act” Teapbulicans passed in the House stands out as one of the most ideologically extreme pieces of major budget legislation to come before Congress in years, if not decades. It would go a substantial way toward enshrining Grover Norquist’s version of America into law.

The House Speaker John Boehner’s new budget proposal would essentially require, as the price of raising the debt ceiling again early next year, a choice between deep cuts in the years immediately ahead in Social Security and Medicare benefits for current retirees, repeal of health reform’s coverage expansions, or wholesale evisceration of basic assistance programs for vulnerable Americans.

The plan is, thus, tantamount to a form of “class warfare.” If enacted, it could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history.

Notice the bolded statement above...In my opinion, that is the reason obama does not want it passed. If those few words were removed, i bet obama would pass it right away...or else the words changed to "raising the debt ceiling early 2013". I believe obama doesn't want the earlier date because it would interfere with his campaigning, and it could look VERY bad on him again, and he doesn't want that when running for re-election. I really believe this is a big reason he won't agree to it.

 

[Full-Auto]

That's pretty silly.

What is so silly about it Toro? If you actually harm and even KILL Americans, WHAT would you call it Toro?

The “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act” Teapbulicans passed in the House stands out as one of the most ideologically extreme pieces of major budget legislation to come before Congress in years, if not decades. It would go a substantial way toward enshrining Grover Norquist’s version of America into law.

The House Speaker John Boehner’s new budget proposal would essentially require, as the price of raising the debt ceiling again early next year, a choice between deep cuts in the years immediately ahead in Social Security and Medicare benefits for current retirees, repeal of health reform’s coverage expansions, or wholesale evisceration of basic assistance programs for vulnerable Americans.

The plan is, thus, tantamount to a form of “class warfare.” If enacted, it could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history.

Notice the bolded statement above...In my opinion, that is the reason obama does not want it passed. If those few words were removed, i bet obama would pass it right away...or else the words changed to "raising the debt ceiling early 2013". I believe obama doesn't want the earlier date because it would interfere with his campaigning, and it could look VERY bad on him again, and he doesn't want that when running for re-election. I really believe this is a big reason he won't agree to it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

who crashed the world economy in 2008?

Jimmy Carter started Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. You've been on this board long enough to know that.

Basically it expanded--like the Federal Government ALWAYS expands programs--to where they thought it would be a great idea to co-sign our names to 50% of the mortgages in this country. This while the CLINTON administration was pressuring banks to lower their lending practices. No down payment--no collateral and a less than a desirable credit rating and sub-prime loaning--could buy you a 400K custom home. Why? Because they had 310 million American co-signers. It was Robert Rubin and Allen Greenspan that fully supported and defended Wall Street's derivitives market. This where Wall Street bankers bought up these mortgage backed securities as fast as they could and then started trading them in the "mother of all casino's"--hedge funds aka the derivitives markets.


Basically the Federal Government built a house of cards that collapsed leaving the American taxpayer holding the bag. That's what happened to our economy--and it started long-long ago.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

Fannie and Freddie are private companies. All of the bad outcomes related to Fannie and Freddie were the result of INSUFFICIENT GOVERNMENT REGULATION of the private sector.

You know, the kind of deregulation that conservatives live for.

OMG! Are you for real?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jimmy Carter started Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. You've been on this board long enough to know that.

Basically it expanded--like the Federal Government ALWAYS expands programs--to where they thought it would be a great idea to co-sign our names to 50% of the mortgages in this country. This while the CLINTON administration was pressuring banks to lower their lending practices. No down payment--no collateral and a less than a desirable credit rating and sub-prime loaning--could buy you a 400K custom home. Why? Because they had 310 million American co-signers. It was Robert Rubin and Allen Greenspan that fully supported and defended Wall Street's derivitives market. This where Wall Street bankers bought up these mortgage backed securities as fast as they could and then started trading them in the "mother of all casino's"--hedge funds aka the derivitives markets.


Basically the Federal Government built a house of cards that collapsed leaving the American taxpayer holding the bag. That's what happened to our economy--and it started long-long ago.



Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

Fannie and Freddie are private companies. All of the bad outcomes related to Fannie and Freddie were the result of INSUFFICIENT GOVERNMENT REGULATION of the private sector.

You know, the kind of deregulation that conservatives live for.

OMG! Are you for real?

What do you dispute?

 

[Full-Auto]

Fannie and Freddie are private companies. All of the bad outcomes related to Fannie and Freddie were the result of INSUFFICIENT GOVERNMENT REGULATION of the private sector.

You know, the kind of deregulation that conservatives live for.

OMG! Are you for real?

What do you dispute?

Ironic as it is. Repubs attempted reform by adding regulation. 17 times by some reports.

Glad we could clear that up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quoting Mr. Yeomans:

"...it has become clear that many in the tea party are willing to inflict massive harm on the American people to obtain their political objective of a severely shrunken federal government."

1. Is that statement true or false?

2. If that statement is true, does what is described accurately fit a general definition of terrorism,

or not?

Shrinking the federal government will benefit the American people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Inflicting less government on the American people will cause them irreparable harm. It's too stupid to refute.

That's not what it means. The tea party would see the country default if they can't get their way.

That is the harm being talked about. Try again.

I've asked you libbies over and over when the interest payments are $20 billion a month and tax revenue is $200 billion a month why we would default. You haven't answered the question, you just repeated the lie as if you did. Try again.

Not paying the interest on the debt is not the only way to default.

You don't seem to understand what the term means.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fannie and Freddie are private companies. All of the bad outcomes related to Fannie and Freddie were the result of INSUFFICIENT GOVERNMENT REGULATION of the private sector.

You know, the kind of deregulation that conservatives live for.

OMG! Are you for real?

What do you dispute?

That Fannie and Freddie are private.
That Fannie and Freddie's problems are because the government left the private sector alone.
Why haven't the Dems who perpetrated the earnings fraud at Fannie been incarcerated yet?

 

[Mr.Nick]

"Tea Party Terrorists."

The Tea Party has NEVER committed a terrorist act.

Geez...

 

[Mr.Nick]

OMG! Are you for real?

What do you dispute?

That Fannie and Freddie are private.
That Fannie and Freddie's problems are because the government left the private sector alone.
Why haven't the Dems who perpetrated the earnings fraud at Fannie been incarcerated yet?

You ever hear of the CRA??

 

[Full-Auto]

OMG! Are you for real?

What do you dispute?

That Fannie and Freddie are private.
That Fannie and Freddie's problems are because the government left the private sector alone.
Why haven't the Dems who perpetrated the earnings fraud at Fannie been incarcerated yet?

They were hired by the obama criminal regime.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's not what it means. The tea party would see the country default if they can't get their way.

That is the harm being talked about. Try again.

I've asked you libbies over and over when the interest payments are $20 billion a month and tax revenue is $200 billion a month why we would default. You haven't answered the question, you just repeated the lie as if you did. Try again.

Not paying the interest on the debt is not the only way to default.

You don't seem to understand what the term means.

Not paying interest on the debt is the way to default on your debt.