Democrats fought against Sen Gramm demanding that he let them force banks to loan Crash Cash
Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')
clearly shows which side, the Democrats, demanded that
"underserved" populations be loaned Crazy Cash. Feel free to read
the entire article but this gives a good idea what the argument
was:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/financial/102399banks-congress.html
#begin quote part
The breakthrough in Friday's legislation came in a backroom
meeting at the Capitol soon after midnight, when a group of
moderate Senate Democrats -- led by Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
and Charles E. Schumer of New York -- forced a compromise between
Gramm and the White House over the legislation's effect on the
Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-discrimination law intended
to encourage lending to minorities and others historically denied
access to credit.
Dodd, whose state is home to the nation's largest insurance
companies, and Schumer, with strong ties to Wall Street, have long
sought legislation to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. Both men said
in interviews Friday that they moved to strike a compromise after
it became apparent that the legislation might be killed, as it was
last year by Gramm, over the debate about the Community
Reinvestment Act.
Gramm had maintained that he did not want anything in the bill that
would expand the application of the Community Reinvestment Act
because it was, he said, unnecessarily burdensome to banks. He had
sought a provision that would exempt thousands of smaller banks
from the law. He also wanted a provision that would expose what he
has described as the "extortion" committed by community groups
against banks by requiring the groups to disclose any special
financial deals the groups extract from the banks.
But the White House found that provision unacceptable and had its
own ideas about community lending. It wanted the legislation to
prevent any bank with an unsatisfactory record of making loans to
the disadvantaged from expanding into new areas, like insurance or
securities.
The White House had insisted that the President would veto any
legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements.
Four days of intense negotiations between Summers, Gene Sperling,
the President's top economic policy adviser, and Gramm, while
moving the two sides closer, failed to resolve the differences.
Such was the state of play Thursday evening when Gramm decided to
force the issue by having the House-Senate conference committee
vote on his proposed compromise, which the White House had already
rejected for failing to block banks with bad lending records from
expanding to new businesses.
When Gramm's measure was defeated by one vote, it quickly became
clear that there would be no law unless Gramm could get some
Democrats to break from the White House.
But Administration officials had spent all day making sure that the
Democrats remained solidly against the measure until their concerns
about the Community Reinvestment Act could be worked out.
After receiving calls from executives of some of the nation's
leading financial companies, Dodd and Schumer began trying to work
out a compromise. An agreement was quickly reached on the issue of
banks and expanded powers -- no institution would be allowed to
move into any new lines of business without a satisfactory lending
record.
The lawmakers bogged down on Gramm's insistence that all community
organizations disclose to the regulators what benefits they get
from banks. Some Democrats expressed the fear that Gramm's proposal
would require the Boy Scouts to file reports with the regulators.
Ultimately, the following provisions were drawn up and both the
White House and Gramm said they could accept them:
詐anks will not be able to move into new lines of business unless
they have satisfactory lending records.
詆ommunity groups will have to make disclosures to regulators about
certain kinds of financial deals with banks that they have pressed
to make loans under the Community Reinvestment Act.
超holesale financial institutions, a new kind of business that
takes large, uninsured bank deposits, cannot be affiliated with
commercial banks.
貶mall banks with satisfactory or excellent track records of
lending to the underserved would be reviewed less frequently under
the Community Reinvestment Act. As a practical matter smaller banks
are reviewed about every three years. The deal struck today allows
all rural banks and banks with less than $250 million in assets to
undergo examination once every five years if their last exam
resulted in an "outstanding" grade and every four years if they
last scored "satisfactory."
For more than 20 years, Congress has tried unsuccessfully to
rewrite the nation's financial services laws and repeal
Glass-Steagall, particularly as many other industrial nations had
no similar restrictions on their banks. But until recently, the
three main industries affected by the legislation -- banks,
securities companies and insurers -- had competing interests and
were able to lobby any legislation to a standstill.
#end quote
TigerLuck
> This is from the New York Times back in October 23, 1999. It
> clearly shows which side, the Democrats, demanded that
> "underserved" populations be loaned Crazy Cash. Feel free to read
> the entire article but this gives a good idea what the argument
> was:
Were the home loans that broke the backs of institutions holding them made so that
people could buy homes in under served communities? Or were they made to buy homes
in new developments?
Did any provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act
require banks to make loans to people with no income and no assets, or NINA loans?
Did any provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act
require those institutions originating home loans to sell them out the door as soon
as possible in order to avoid the risk of holding them?
You are focusing on one small aspect of the compromise that led to the passage of
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act to the exclusion of
those provisions of the act itself that had a critical impact on the current
mortgage crisis.
The Community Reinvestment Act was in effect for 30 years without causing any
problems whatsoever. It was not until mortgage brokers, realizing how much money
could be made by making home loans, bundling and selling them, and avoiding the risk
of holding them, began making loans to anyone with a pulse and even to some without
one. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, as the name
implies, was pushed through by Republicans and it was the provisions of *this* bill
that led to the mortgage crisis, *not* the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act.
--
Einstein forgot to carry the two
. tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!! .
<ori...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vh7hd4h946p4vdrd9...@4ax.com...
> Let's be clear about one thing: This is the CLINTON White House
Sweetheart, it's really time to stop obsessing about Bubba, its been like
what, 8 years or more now? Fact is Bush and Co have far more to answer for
than any shit Clinton might have got up to. But hey, if that's all you got
to get by on, here's another helping hand:
*Clinton had bad breath*.
Go on, son, run with that.
Work with it.
Go!
The tragedy of balding men with long hair
just because they aren't millionaires like him. Phil Gramm who
sponsored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act further deregulating the banks
and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.
Yeah, he's a true hero of American greed and champion of billionaires
everywhere. Hats off to this shill.
And now he advises McCain. We stand in the midst of his stupidity,
his economic ruin and he's giving McCain economic advise. I can image
that advice being something along the lines of "We haven't ruined the
economy enough yet. Let's give all of the federal reserves to all of
the bad business men and women who have ruined our economy, just
giving all of our tax dollars and watch them sink this country. Then
we can make a fortune selling it off to the Chinese."
Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')
TigerLuck wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the
> Roosskies'') wrote:
> > This is from the New York Times back in October 23, 1999. It
> > clearly shows which side, the Democrats, demanded that
> > "underserved" populations be loaned Crazy Cash. Feel free to read
> > the entire article but this gives a good idea what the argument
> > was:
>
> Were the home loans that broke the backs of institutions holding them made so that
> people could buy homes in under served communities? Or were they made to buy homes
> in new developments?
>
I think they mean "underserved" as in black or poor or something
like that. I'm sure that the loans went to people who bought homes
in old areas and new developments.
> Did any provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act
> require banks to make loans to people with no income and no assets, or NINA loans?
>
They were told that they couldn't get the clear for megamergers
unless they loaned to the underserved communities.
> Did any provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act
> require those institutions originating home loans to sell them out the door as soon
> as possible in order to avoid the risk of holding them?
>
Why don't you read the act? Did you even read the text I posted?
It's pretty clear who lined on which side. It wasn't Gramm that was
fighting for loaning to people who couldn't pay it back.
> You are focusing on one small aspect of the compromise that led to the passage of
> the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act to the exclusion of
> those provisions of the act itself that had a critical impact on the current
> mortgage crisis.
>
The crisis is that the loans are bad. They are bad because they
were loaned to people who couldn't pay them back. Now that would be
all right if the value of the collateral, the homes, wasn't less
than the loans. But that's also due to over loaning people since No
Money Down and various other schemes are primarily intended to get
people approved who shouldn't be approved.
> The Community Reinvestment Act was in effect for 30 years without causing any
> problems whatsoever.
>
I don't know if it didn't cause any problems, but then the price of
homes went up during those 30 years. Something changed, however,
and it seems to have included the demand that banks get high
ratings for making loans to underserved communities.
> It was not until mortgage brokers, realizing how much money
> could be made by making home loans, bundling and selling them, and avoiding the risk
> of holding them, began making loans to anyone with a pulse and even to some without
> one. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, as the name
> implies, was pushed through by Republicans and it was the provisions of *this* bill
> that led to the mortgage crisis, *not* the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act.
>
The text I provided showed that The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial
Services Modernization Act was a bipartisan effort that included
the Clinton administration. There were disagreements between the
two parties. Gramm fought to rein in the CRA:
#begin quote ibidem
#end quote
--
Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out,
They leave the West behind,
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout,
That Georgia's always on my my my my my my my my my mind.
TigerLuck
So you agree that for 30 years there was no discernible damage done by the Community
Reinvestment Act. No one was forced to make loans to people who could not pay them
back. Why all of a sudden, in 2003-2004, 25 years *after* the passage of the
Community Reinvestment Act did banks and other financial institutions all of a
sudden begin making home loans to people who could not pay them back?
Here is why:
Institutions that were originating home loans began bundling the loans and selling
them to investors looking for higher yields than they could get from treasuries. In
this manner the institutions that were originating home loans could make more money
faster and with no risk of holding the loans. In order to bring in more loan
business, requirements for getting a loan were relaxed at the originating
institutions since there was no risk involved as long as there was a market for
these bundles of mortgages. The hotshots who were pushing the loans out the door,
where the rubber met the road, were making money on commission and were the engine
that drove this loan machine. Mid-level and upper management were coaxed to go along
for the ride as long as their bank did not have to hold the loans. As long as the
loans could be bundled and sold out the door, everyone made money and everyone was
happy. The money poured in and the Champagne flowed and the Community Reinvestment
Act did not have a god-damned thing to do with it.
It was pure greed at the bottom of the chain on the part of those who were
originating the loans.
The Giant Pool of Money
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1242
Click on "Full Episode"
Jeffrey Turner
toe with the Roosskies'') wrote:
> This is from the New York Times back in October 23, 1999. It
> clearly shows which side, the Democrats, demanded that
> "underserved" populations be loaned Crazy Cash. Feel free to read
> the entire article but this gives a good idea what the argument
> was:
There's nothing in the CRA - or Gramm, et al.'s 1999 bill - that
requires banks to make bad loans. Period.
Banks have long had discriminatory lending practices. There's nothing
wrong with using the law to prevent banks from discriminating. But
banks discriminated even with their sub-prime loans.
--Jeff
--
Oh, I'm not a pheasant plucker,
I'm a pheasant plucker's son.
And I'm sitting plucking pheasants
till the pheasant plucker comes.
Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')
The tragedy of balding men with long hair wrote:
>
> Good ol' Phil Gramm, the man who called Americans a bunch of whiners
> just because they aren't millionaires like him. Phil Gramm who
> sponsored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act further deregulating the banks
> and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.
>
Phil Gramm is one of the good guys in all this.
> Yeah, he's a true hero of American greed and champion of billionaires
> everywhere. Hats off to this shill.
>
What are you talking about? How is having more competition bad?
Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to
> toe with the Roosskies'') wrote:
>
> > This is from the New York Times back in October 23, 1999. It
> > clearly shows which side, the Democrats, demanded that
> > "underserved" populations be loaned Crazy Cash. Feel free to read
> > the entire article but this gives a good idea what the argument
> > was:
>
> There's nothing in the CRA - or Gramm, et al.'s 1999 bill - that
> requires banks to make bad loans. Period.
>
No, they are just supposed to loan a lot to folks who don't qualify
for loans in those amounts or even at all. That's what the
Democrats insisted be in Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
> Banks have long had discriminatory lending practices. There's nothing
> wrong with using the law to prevent banks from discriminating. But
> banks discriminated even with their sub-prime loans.
>
You mean they won't loan to blacks? That's not true, now the
complaint is that they did lend to them and that's discrimination.
TigerLuck
Bill, I bitch-slapped you with the truth of the matter several times now and yet you
are still looking for more. I never could understand people who actively sought out
punishment.
Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')
TigerLuck wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the
> Roosskies'') wrote:
> >
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >> Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to
> >> toe with the Roosskies'') wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is from the New York Times back in October 23, 1999. It
> >>> clearly shows which side, the Democrats, demanded that
> >>> "underserved" populations be loaned Crazy Cash. Feel free to read
> >>> the entire article but this gives a good idea what the argument
> >>> was:
> >> There's nothing in the CRA - or Gramm, et al.'s 1999 bill - that
> >> requires banks to make bad loans. Period.
> >>
> > No, they are just supposed to loan a lot to folks who don't qualify
> > for loans in those amounts or even at all. That's what the
> > Democrats insisted be in Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Banks have long had discriminatory lending practices. There's nothing
> >> wrong with using the law to prevent banks from discriminating. But
> >> banks discriminated even with their sub-prime loans.
> >>
> > You mean they won't loan to blacks? That's not true, now the
> > complaint is that they did lend to them and that's discrimination.
>
> Bill, I bitch-slapped you with the truth of the matter several times now and yet you
> are still looking for more. I never could understand people who actively sought out
> punishment.
>
You are a kook. I've got the cites to the New York Times, the
Senate Record, etc. You've brought nothing to the table but your
bluster.
. tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!! .
<ori...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4i3jd41nmtjqcgmva...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:35:51 -0700, ". tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!! ." <.
> tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!! .> wrote:
>
>>
>><ori...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:vh7hd4h946p4vdrd9...@4ax.com...
>>> Let's be clear about one thing: This is the CLINTON White House
>>
>>Sweetheart,
>
Hey man, stop dissing me and Sarah Plain Sailin' like that!!
Jeffrey Turner
toe with the Roosskies'') wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to
>>toe with the Roosskies'') wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is from the New York Times back in October 23, 1999. It
>>>clearly shows which side, the Democrats, demanded that
>>>"underserved" populations be loaned Crazy Cash. Feel free to read
>>>the entire article but this gives a good idea what the argument
>>>was:
>>
>>There's nothing in the CRA - or Gramm, et al.'s 1999 bill - that
>>requires banks to make bad loans. Period.
>
> No, they are just supposed to loan a lot to folks who don't qualify
> for loans in those amounts or even at all.
Nope. Not even close. You're just making that up.
> That's what the
> Democrats insisted be in Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
They insisted banks couldn't discriminate.
>>Banks have long had discriminatory lending practices. There's nothing
>>wrong with using the law to prevent banks from discriminating. But
>>banks discriminated even with their sub-prime loans.
>
> You mean they won't loan to blacks? That's not true, now the
> complaint is that they did lend to them and that's discrimination.
I mean they made sub-prime loans to people who qualified for regular
loans. And the percentage was higher among black borrowers.
Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to
> toe with the Roosskies'') wrote:
>
> >
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >
> >>Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to
> >>toe with the Roosskies'') wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>This is from the New York Times back in October 23, 1999. It
> >>>clearly shows which side, the Democrats, demanded that
> >>>"underserved" populations be loaned Crazy Cash. Feel free to read
> >>>the entire article but this gives a good idea what the argument
> >>>was:
> >>
> >>There's nothing in the CRA - or Gramm, et al.'s 1999 bill - that
> >>requires banks to make bad loans. Period.
> >
> > No, they are just supposed to loan a lot to folks who don't qualify
> > for loans in those amounts or even at all.
>
> Nope. Not even close. You're just making that up.
>
What do you think "under served" means?
> > That's what the
> > Democrats insisted be in Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
>
> They insisted banks couldn't discriminate.
>
They insisted they make the loans.
> >>Banks have long had discriminatory lending practices. There's nothing
> >>wrong with using the law to prevent banks from discriminating. But
> >>banks discriminated even with their sub-prime loans.
> >
> > You mean they won't loan to blacks? That's not true, now the
> > complaint is that they did lend to them and that's discrimination.
>
> I mean they made sub-prime loans to people who qualified for regular
> loans. And the percentage was higher among black borrowers.
>
What were their credit scores?
nys999
news:48D9C71A...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to
>> toe with the Roosskies'') wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> >
>> >>Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to
>> >>toe with the Roosskies'') wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>This is from the New York Times back in October 23, 1999. It
>> >>>clearly shows which side, the Democrats, demanded that
>> >>>"underserved" populations be loaned Crazy Cash. Feel free to read
>> >>>the entire article but this gives a good idea what the argument
>> >>>was:
>> >>
>> >>There's nothing in the CRA - or Gramm, et al.'s 1999 bill - that
>> >>requires banks to make bad loans. Period.
>> >
>> > No, they are just supposed to loan a lot to folks who don't qualify
>> > for loans in those amounts or even at all.
>>
>> Nope. Not even close. You're just making that up.
>>
> What do you think "under served" means?
Sometimes, "discriminated against due to race."
The tragedy of balding men with long hair
nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')"
Yeah, just ignore the 700 billion dollar bailout, folks. Just rich
people practicing richman socialism.
Jeffrey Turner
> "Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to
> toe with the Roosskies'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:48D9C71A...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
>
>>
>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to
>>>toe with the Roosskies'') wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to
>>>>>toe with the Roosskies'') wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>This is from the New York Times back in October 23, 1999. It
>>>>>>clearly shows which side, the Democrats, demanded that
>>>>>>"underserved" populations be loaned Crazy Cash. Feel free to read
>>>>>>the entire article but this gives a good idea what the argument
>>>>>>was:
>>>>>
>>>>>There's nothing in the CRA - or Gramm, et al.'s 1999 bill - that
>>>>>requires banks to make bad loans. Period.
>>>>
>>>>No, they are just supposed to loan a lot to folks who don't qualify
>>>>for loans in those amounts or even at all.
>>>
>>>Nope. Not even close. You're just making that up.
>>>
>>
>>What do you think "under served" means?
>
> Sometimes, "discriminated against due to race."
Exactly. Of course, the bankers, and the gov't that was supposed to
serve the people, were only interested in serving themselves and the
short-term interests of the investor class. So they gouged the
lenders and piled balloon rates on them which would collapse later,
while they ran off with the fees and bonuses they got for making loans.
>>>>That's what the
>>>>Democrats insisted be in Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
>>>
>>>They insisted banks couldn't discriminate.
>>
>>They insisted they make the loans.
Not predatory loans. The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America
managed to make loans, even sub-prime loans, without driving borrowers
into bankruptcy, nor going bankrupt themselves.
>>>>>Banks have long had discriminatory lending practices. There's
>>>>> nothing
>>>>>wrong with using the law to prevent banks from discriminating. But
>>>>>banks discriminated even with their sub-prime loans.
>>>>
>>>>You mean they won't loan to blacks? That's not true, now the
>>>>complaint is that they did lend to them and that's discrimination.
>>>
>>>I mean they made sub-prime loans to people who qualified for regular
>>>loans. And the percentage was higher among black borrowers.
>>
>>What were their credit scores?
Good enough. Don't give me the usual conservative BS about the total
rationality of the market. Nobody's purely rational - especially
conservatives.
Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')
nys999 wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to
> toe with the Roosskies'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:48D9C71A...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
> >
> >
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to
> >> toe with the Roosskies'') wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to
> >> >>toe with the Roosskies'') wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>This is from the New York Times back in October 23, 1999. It
> >> >>>clearly shows which side, the Democrats, demanded that
> >> >>>"underserved" populations be loaned Crazy Cash. Feel free to read
> >> >>>the entire article but this gives a good idea what the argument
> >> >>>was:
> >> >>
> >> >>There's nothing in the CRA - or Gramm, et al.'s 1999 bill - that
> >> >>requires banks to make bad loans. Period.
> >> >
> >> > No, they are just supposed to loan a lot to folks who don't qualify
> >> > for loans in those amounts or even at all.
> >>
> >> Nope. Not even close. You're just making that up.
> >>
> > What do you think "under served" means?
>
> Sometimes, "discriminated against due to race."
>
How do you decide it's that or because they don't have enough
income?
Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')
The tragedy of balding men with long hair wrote:
>
> On Sep 23, 1:12 pm, "Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it,
> nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')"
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > The tragedy of balding men with long hair wrote:
> >
> > > Good ol' Phil Gramm, the man who called Americans a bunch of whiners
> > > just because they aren't millionaires like him. Phil Gramm who
> > > sponsored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act further deregulating the banks
> > > and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.
> >
> > Phil Gramm is one of the good guys in all this.
> >
> > > Yeah, he's a true hero of American greed and champion of billionaires
> > > everywhere. Hats off to this shill.
> >
> > What are you talking about? How is having more competition bad?
>
> Yeah, just ignore the 700 billion dollar bailout, folks.
>
This is the argument we are having. How is having more competition
bad? Just answer that question.
> Just rich
> people practicing richman socialism.
>
What?
Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')
These are different issues that aren't directly related to race.
> >>>>That's what the
> >>>>Democrats insisted be in Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
> >>>
> >>>They insisted banks couldn't discriminate.
> >>
> >>They insisted they make the loans.
>
> Not predatory loans. The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America
> managed to make loans, even sub-prime loans, without driving borrowers
> into bankruptcy, nor going bankrupt themselves.
>
I've been saying for a long time that there are public policy
issues that need to be dealt with regarding interest rates. I've
said that you can't price in the risk of a subprime loan just by
increasing rates. I keep saying that and apparently some people
keep not hearing it.
> >>>I mean they made sub-prime loans to people who qualified for regular
> >>>loans. And the percentage was higher among black borrowers.
> >>
> >>What were their credit scores?
>
> Good enough. Don't give me the usual conservative BS about the total
> rationality of the market. Nobody's purely rational - especially
> conservatives.
>
So you can't tell me what their credit scores were?
The tragedy of balding men with long hair
More competition is great. Lots and lots more competition is the
best.
I'm not letting the Dems off on this. The majority are as guilty as
sin but don't try to frame Gramm as some kind of hero.
There was a time when America was a big enough pond that businesses
could evolve and thrive and competition drove that evolution. Now,
though, the companies are too large and the pond is no longer big
enough. The companies devour all of the smaller companies, never
allowing for competition to ever really become a factor. All of the
deregulation has made it possible for this to occur. The
consolidation of wealth and power until with have gigantic monopolies
and little or no competition is the end result of an unfettered
market.
You know what happens when there isn't diversity in a system? Mass
extinction.
Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')
The tragedy of balding men with long hair wrote:
>
> On Sep 24, 10:05 am, "Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it,
> nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')"
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > The tragedy of balding men with long hair wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 23, 1:12 pm, "Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it,
> > > nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')"
> > > <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > The tragedy of balding men with long hair wrote:
> >
> > > > > Good ol' Phil Gramm, the man who called Americans a bunch of whiners
> > > > > just because they aren't millionaires like him. Phil Gramm who
> > > > > sponsored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act further deregulating the banks
> > > > > and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.
> >
> > > > Phil Gramm is one of the good guys in all this.
> >
> > > > > Yeah, he's a true hero of American greed and champion of billionaires
> > > > > everywhere. Hats off to this shill.
> >
> > > > What are you talking about? How is having more competition bad?
> >
> > > Yeah, just ignore the 700 billion dollar bailout, folks.
> >
> > This is the argument we are having. How is having more competition
> > bad? Just answer that question.
> >
> > > Just rich
> > > people practicing richman socialism.
> >
> > What?
> >
>
> More competition is great. Lots and lots more competition is the
> best.
>
> I'm not letting the Dems off on this. The majority are as guilty as
> sin but don't try to frame Gramm as some kind of hero.
>
He fought to reduce the exposure to bad loans by banks that wanted
to be part of the new megacompanies that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
allowed.
> There was a time when America was a big enough pond that businesses
> could evolve and thrive and competition drove that evolution. Now,
> though, the companies are too large and the pond is no longer big
> enough. The companies devour all of the smaller companies, never
> allowing for competition to ever really become a factor. All of the
> deregulation has made it possible for this to occur. The
> consolidation of wealth and power until with have gigantic monopolies
> and little or no competition is the end result of an unfettered
> market.
>
You have dozens if not hundreds of choices for most everything in
the financial sector. If you want a CD, who do you talk to? How
about a credit card? How about a home loan?
> You know what happens when there isn't diversity in a system? Mass
> extinction.
>
But there is diversity and it is helped to exist by
Gramm-Leach-Bliley. There are, of course, problems.
nys999
toe with the Roosskies'')" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
Simple. Let a white person walk in using the same data.
See, it's not impossible to figure out a solution if one approaches the
question honestly.