- Jul 19, 2014
- Reaction score
Point is, she gave him access to the guns. She didn't have them in a safe where only she knew the combination.
Instead, she took him to a range and taught him how to shoot them. She let him play first person shooter games for hours on end.
Mama Lanza was just as guilty as he was.
There are no "rights".
There are only privileges that society agrees you should have.
Any fool who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up Japanese Americans, 1942.
Now, in principle, I don't have a problem with you guys practicing your gun fetish, as long as it doesn't have any impact on my life.
But 39,000 gun deaths a year
70,000 gun injuries.
273 BILLION in economic losses.
400,000 gun crimes
active shooter drills,
sending Timmy to school with a bullet proof backpack,
key-carding internal doors in the work place to slow down active shooters,
militarized police who shoot people when they reach for a cell phone...
Um, yeah, your fetish has become a real pain in the ass to the rest of us, and you guys don't even want to make TOKEN efforts to slow down the carnage.
The two things that happen after every mass shooting is we find out everyone in that person's life knew he was trouble, and he was still able to get a gun, really easily.
What if the actual cause was simply organic, defective hardwiring in the brain, or a society that puts too much pressure on people?
Blaming the mother without all the facts may not be fair?
If Africans had had firearms, then there never would have been any slavery in the first place.
Not when banks can decide who gets a mortgage or not.
Banks make decisions based on the ability to repay loans......they don't care about color of skin.
We found that out when the clinton's and the democrat simply forced banks to make bad loans, and then we had the mortgage crash.....
I disagree that encouraging minority loans had anything at all to do with the 2008 housing crash.
The defaults were not new loans.
They had been paying successfully for years.
It was the huge increase in monthly payments, based on deceptive British LIBOR interest rates, that caused the defaults.
And all of those innocent home buyers should have been bailed out, not the banks who were at fault.
Blaming the home buyers for the 2008 collapse is just wrong.
Libor Scandals and the 2008 Financial CrisisLibor is on the way out as a loan benchmark because of the role it played in worsening the 2008 financial crisis as well as scandals involving Libor manipulation among the rate-setting banks.
Libor and the 2008 Financial Crisis
The use and abuse of credit default swaps (CDS) was one of the major drivers of the 2008 financial crisis. A very wide range of interrelated financial companies insured risky mortgages and other questionable financial products using CDS. Rates for CDS were set using Libor, and these derivative investments were used to insure against defaults on subprime mortgages.
American International Group (AIG) was the biggest player in the CDS disaster. The firm issued vast quantities of CDS on subprime mortgages and countless other financial products, like mortgaged-backed securities. The crash of the real estate market in 2007, followed by the even larger market meltdown in 2008, forced AIG into bankruptcy, resulting in one of the largest government bailouts in history.
Once AIG started falling apart, it became clear that failing subprime mortgages and the securities built on top of them weren’t properly insured, many banks became reluctant to lend to each other. Libor transmitted the crisis far and wide since every day Libor rate-setting banks estimated higher and higher interest rates. Libor rose, making loans more expensive, even as global central banks rushed to slash interest rates.
With rates on trillions of dollars of financial products soaring day after day, and fears about stunted bank lending reducing the flow of money through the economy, markets crashed. Libor was only one of the many factors that created the financial industry disasters of 2008, but its key role in transmitting the crisis to all parts of the global economy has driven many nations to seek safer alternatives.
Libor ManipulationIn 2012, extensive investigations into the way Libor was set uncovered a widespread, long-lasting scheme among multiple banks—including Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Rabobank, UBS and the Royal Bank of Scotland—to manipulate Libor rates for profit.
Barclays was a key player in this complicated scam. Barclays would submit its Libor estimates, claiming that it was lower than what other banks actually charged it. Because a lower rate supposedly indicates a smaller risk of default, it is considered a sign that a bank is in better shape than another bank with a higher rate.
It wasn’t just Barclays, though. At UBS, one trader involved in Libor setting, Thomas Hayes, managed to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars for the bank over the course of three years. Hayes also colluded with traders at the Royal Bank of Scotland on rigging Libor. UBS executives denied all knowledge of what had been going on, although the ring managed to manipulate rate submissions across multiple institutions.
For more than 40 years, the London Interbank Offered Rate—commonly known as Libor—has been a key benchmark for setting the interest rates charged on adjustable-rate loans and a variety of mortgages. Libor also plays a big role in pricing debt issued by corporate borrowers. This key measure for thwww.forbes.com
The clinton's used the Community reinvestment act to threaten banks...they didn't "encourage" bad loans, they forced them on banks and the banks unloaded them...creating the crisis......
Nothing was forced, but the banks were illegally denying loans based on address and race.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, P.L. 95-128, 91 Stat. 1147, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.
The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.)
None of the defaulting mortgages in 2008 were the fault of the home buyers.
The banks and real estate companies essentially were swindling them.
They sold them on unrealistic ARM loans the banks and agents knew were going to greatly increase.
And in fact the LIBOR scandal is about how the banks deliberately made the rates greatly increase.
Again, it can not be over emphasized that the individual home buyers were NOT at all at fault.
CRA was great and reduced previous illegal redlining practices.
< Previous Thread