You can do a search as easy as I can and find dozens of links about the problems and amount of deregulation----then youll say every one is wrong and your souces are right......yeah, let me waste my time on trying to influence your close minded beliefs.....lol, sure.
Oh, so you expect me to do the things you try to do... Like discredit any source someone puts forth like you did with the story from the GOP website... So this is a whole do as I say not as I do type of thing huh?
My god puro, I've posted several things about it in the obama prize thread. Also do some research. I'm tired of always finding stuff and then posting it only to hear you and kuzi go on and on about how it never happened.
You can do a search as easy as I can and find dozens of links about the problems and amount of deregulation----then youll say every one is wrong and your souces are right......yeah, let me waste my time on trying to influence your close minded beliefs.....lol, sure.
Oh, so you expect me to do the things you try to do... Like discredit any source someone puts forth like you did with the story from the GOP website... So this is a whole do as I say not as I do type of thing huh?
My god puro, I've posted several things about it in the obama prize thread. Also do some research. I'm tired of always finding stuff and then posting it only to hear you and kuzi go on and on about how it never happened.
You still have never showed that De-regualtion caused anything. You showed 2 or 3 things where regulation was cut, then I just posted a link to dozens of regulations that have been added. That does NOT amount to de-regualtion when you take away 2 and add 12 more.
Hes right Squirrel, it is about regulation---I see the light now. Its the **** over the common man that has been regulated and made commonplace. Without these d@mn regulations AIG, Enron, GM, Lehman Bros and the like would still be having their annual XMas parties in peace and providing security and stability for all mankind...Obama in 8 months has effectively ruined everything 8 years of W. worked so hard at. Minus that whole war thing, and the whole detainee thing, the whole patriot act thing, the whole judge firing thing, the whole...
Hes right Squirrel, it is about regulation---I see the light now. Its the **** over the common man that has been regulated and made commonplace. Without these d@mn regulations AIG, Enron, GM, Lehman Bros and the like would still be having their annual XMas parties in peace and providing security and stability for all mankind...Obama in 8 months has effectively ruined everything 8 years of W. worked so hard at. Minus that whole war thing, and the whole detainee thing, the whole patriot act thing, the whole judge firing thing, the whole...
Thats right, keep bashing Bush because you have no idea what you are talking about. Bush was as bad as any Democrat at growing government control. It's funny because you always revert back to Bush and as I have said many many times before, I'm not a fan of the man. I'm not saying what he did was right, he did a few things that I agree with and a LOT that I disagree with. But it's much easier to attack him than it is to face an actual debate about the topic at hand. Keep up the good work!
To back up what Puro said - there has NEVER been a true deregulation. EVER. Always, always, always, including Reagan (though the least in his day), Bush Sr., Clinton, W., and now Obama, regulations and taxes and B.S. have been dumped on businesses large and small. Choking the Market. And to put it bluntly - YES it does hurt the common man. The common man works for those businesses or starts their own small business and they take a hit from those regulations and taxes. Bush Sr. was a moderate - so was W. I agree with a few of their decisions, but they were both horribly Liberal when it came to regulation on the business sector.
The bank example brought up in the last page was not only an issue with the banks decision - it is a government mandate that prevented banks from turning down MOST minorities for loans. Feel free to google "sub prime loans." As stated earlier, this is far from a simple issue, and the banks and the government have plenty of blame to take, BUT it was mandated by the Federal government to attempt to improve the housing market in urban areas. Quite clearly, it didn't work. As with pretty much any Federal program, it was short sighted and a massive disaster.
One last thing - regulations on fuel economy are not put there to help the US auto industry to compete with Toyota/Honda. They do not help improve quality. The Market demands those improvements by customers (such as myself) who choose a better quality car at the right price. Hence why I purchased a Honda Civic. I knew when I purchased it, based on Honda's reputation, that my Civic would run well past 100K miles. It certainly has, and without a hicup. When Ford/Chevy, etc can produce a car like that, I will consider purchasing one. The Federal government forcing them to meet fuel efficiency standards is not going to help me purchase their cars. EVER. And it never will. If the price of fuel skyrockets like it did a year or two ago, fuel efficiency will become a major selling point again, and the cars will be built to suit demand - the government forcing auto makers to meet fuel efficiency standards is creating an artificial demand that does not exist in the market place.
Tat, you make some good points and I can see some of them. But on the overall, I think the auto regulation-----if done like it shoudl have been, wouldve made the manufacturers make better cars instead of losing out to overseas makers as we have. The failure to enforce better gas mileage, better made cars, ect. has helped to make Toyota and other the giant they are today-----and while I love a good deal, I do try to support American business as much as I can.As far as loans and mortgages failing due to too much regulation, I cant see this arguement at all. It is greed and the desire for the higher profit (no matter what the cost) combined with Regan and Bush era deregulation that ruined banks and the credit market-----although just to blame them is unfair, as it is a HUUUUUUUGE picture issues with a lot of variables.And indeed squirrel, its best to just agree with some people who have a real need for that "ego boost", cant debate anything when someone cant fathom the idea they may ever be wrong.
On the banking debate - I saw first hand how the govt can cause mortgages to fail ...As a mortgage loan officer I packaged a mortgage and sent in to underwriting even though it failed all bank guidelines because to put it bluntly we were told if the customer is black send it anyway ( I dont mean for this to offend anyone and I'm not being racist just telling what happened) They turned it down flat and my supervisor called and wanted to know why I even sent it in !!! I advised him this was a black couple. He says " ohh - ok I'll get back to you" Long story short in a few days it was approved !!! Customer could nor afford it and was behind alot while I still worked there. Now tell me regulation has nothing to do with mortgage failures !!! Saw it , was involved in it , know it ...I'm just sayin'...this is not an opinion or point of view... it is fact ...period !!!
Your bank made the deciision to pursue the matter, forfear of being sued due to discrimination. No one at the end of the day is responsible for giving that loan than the bank...period. Shoudl have have been denied? Your d@mn right they should have, then get busy denying....not granting loans that will likely fail under the hope of success which would mean more money because of the higher interest rate.
Volchur I'm not sure how much you know or dont know about how a federally chartered bank works or doesnt work but I assure you (from the president of the banks mouth) that it WAS NOT the banks desire to make this loan or any other like it! As far as being sued , we had a battery of high paid attorneys sitting around just waiting to defend against chit like descrimination suits -so no the bank wasn't one damn bit afraid of being sued. As you say "At the end of the day -the people responsible for this loan going thru was govt beuracracy -not the bank- the govt BS of taking care of minoritys whether they could handle it or not. It boiled down to one thing and one thing only - the govt making banks use a double standard to meet loan quotas for minoritys ( 2 sets of credit rules) one for non-minoritys and one for minoritys. This still pisses me off years later. This also happened in the 80's when I was still in banking so these problems have gone on for a lot more than the Bush administration. If this loan had been denied and we were audited and failed to meet whatever the govt guideline at that time for minority loans were they would have had federal regulators so far up their *** it would not have been funny !!! To insinuate the bank wanted to make a loan to ANYONE with bad credit and a history of not paying anyone as you state in your last comment "not granting loans that will likely fail under the hope of success which would mean more money because of the higher interest rate" shows a lack of understanding/willingness to see something for what it really is and is just plain rediculous. I didn't comment on this thread to attack your view/or you for that matter. I know you guys have a spirited debate going on (youeself,Pheebs,Puro,Kuzi and some others). But this had nothing to do with the bank and everything to do with forced lending guidelines supported by the govt at that time. Regulation , de-regulation, whatever , I am stating a fact and you can accept it even though you may not like or it doesn't fit conveniently into your argument with others or come up with a witty response to downplay it. But it is what it is - a loan made to a minority that could not afford it because the govt thought they were protecting them and giving them the American Dream instead of letting the bank make that decision based on credit worthiness.
^^ he said it better than I did. And with actual experience in the field, rather than some google magic, lol. And again, you'll notice that this didn't start with any particular political party - the blame belongs with both parties.
The blame falls on government in general, both parties and anyone ones else on capitol hill. Government is growing by leaps and bounds and is choking out our freedoms and out markets. Until something changes in this area, we will continue to suffer.
Very well GMill, I trust your facts and being in the business. I am sure this does happen, and is as absurd as any other system meant to "level the playing field"...which I agree, in itself is illogical and using race ignorantly. I perhaps should not have taken on that idea at all, because we are/were talking about a larger issue here---not one specific instance (although I am sure I will be told it is extremely common & the cause of all financial turmoil).
Very well GMill, I trust your facts and being in the business. I am sure this does happen, and is as absurd as any other system meant to "level the playing field"...which I agree, in itself is illogical and using race ignorantly. I perhaps should not have taken on that idea at all, because we are/were talking about a larger issue here---not one specific instance (although I am sure I will be told it is extremely common & the cause of all financial turmoil).
I wouldn't say that "THAT" is the cause of all the financial problems, but it is one of hundreds of examples of government regulation choking an industry and causing more damage than good.
I believe no child left behind is regulation which chokes life out of us, I think the govt. being able to access your books checked out of a library in case you may be a "enemy combatant" does more damage than good. Regulating bad loans which work with falsely priced homes through bank that incur more debt that cash coming in-------still cant see it. Not saying regulation of everything is good, FAR FAR FAR from it. Some areas though, which arent transparent enough, only have regulation to ensure the average Joe their not buying ocean front property in Iowa. Greed is fine, but when it is illegal or to the detriment of everyone else involved becomes a public enemy.
Very well GMill, I trust your facts and being in the business. I am sure this does happen, and is as absurd as any other system meant to "level the playing field"...which I agree, in itself is illogical and using race ignorantly. I perhaps should not have taken on that idea at all, because we are/were talking about a larger issue here---not one specific instance (although I am sure I will be told it is extremely common & the cause of all financial turmoil).
I wouldn't say that "THAT" is the cause of all the financial problems, but it is one of hundreds of examples of government regulation choking an industry and causing more damage than good.
I agree Volchor , it is absurd and as you say an ignorant use of race and illogical, agree 100% !!! Puro I also agree with your assessment that it is an example of govt regulation choking an industry ...absolutely !!!
I believe no child left behind is regulation which chokes life out of us, I think the govt. being able to access your books checked out of a library in case you may be a "enemy combatant" does more damage than good. Regulating bad loans which work with falsely priced homes through bank that incur more debt that cash coming in-------still cant see it. Not saying regulation of everything is good, FAR FAR FAR from it. Some areas though, which arent transparent enough, only have regulation to ensure the average Joe their not buying ocean front property in Iowa. Greed is fine, but when it is illegal or to the detriment of everyone else involved becomes a public enemy.
REALLY NOW? You feel government access to your library records is a bigger threat than the damage done to our economy by the government forcing banks to make bad loans? Wow... You just don't want to see any other point of view.
For the record, I don't agree with the government gathering all the information in the world on us either, but right now that is one of our smallest concerns.
Nobody ever said that isn't a concern, but we are discussing the financial crisis and the two have nothing to do with each other. It's like when you don't have a valid argument, you change the subject to something totally unrelated.
Comments
.....the sound of this thread derailing!
The bank example brought up in the last page was not only an issue with the banks decision - it is a government mandate that prevented banks from turning down MOST minorities for loans. Feel free to google "sub prime loans." As stated earlier, this is far from a simple issue, and the banks and the government have plenty of blame to take, BUT it was mandated by the Federal government to attempt to improve the housing market in urban areas. Quite clearly, it didn't work. As with pretty much any Federal program, it was short sighted and a massive disaster.
One last thing - regulations on fuel economy are not put there to help the US auto industry to compete with Toyota/Honda. They do not help improve quality. The Market demands those improvements by customers (such as myself) who choose a better quality car at the right price. Hence why I purchased a Honda Civic. I knew when I purchased it, based on Honda's reputation, that my Civic would run well past 100K miles. It certainly has, and without a hicup. When Ford/Chevy, etc can produce a car like that, I will consider purchasing one. The Federal government forcing them to meet fuel efficiency standards is not going to help me purchase their cars. EVER. And it never will. If the price of fuel skyrockets like it did a year or two ago, fuel efficiency will become a major selling point again, and the cars will be built to suit demand - the government forcing auto makers to meet fuel efficiency standards is creating an artificial demand that does not exist in the market place.
Volchur I'm not sure how much you know or dont know about how a federally chartered bank works or doesnt work but I assure you (from the president of the banks mouth) that it WAS NOT the banks desire to make this loan or any other like it! As far as being sued , we had a battery of high paid attorneys sitting around just waiting to defend against chit like descrimination suits -so no the bank wasn't one damn bit afraid of being sued. As you say "At the end of the day -the people responsible for this loan going thru was govt beuracracy -not the bank- the govt BS of taking care of minoritys whether they could handle it or not. It boiled down to one thing and one thing only - the govt making banks use a double standard to meet loan quotas for minoritys ( 2 sets of credit rules) one for non-minoritys and one for minoritys. This still pisses me off years later. This also happened in the 80's when I was still in banking so these problems have gone on for a lot more than the Bush administration. If this loan had been denied and we were audited and failed to meet whatever the govt guideline at that time for minority loans were they would have had federal regulators so far up their *** it would not have been funny !!! To insinuate the bank wanted to make a loan to ANYONE with bad credit and a history of not paying anyone as you state in your last comment "not granting loans that will likely fail under the hope of success which would mean more money because of the higher interest rate" shows a lack of understanding/willingness to see something for what it really is and is just plain rediculous. I didn't comment on this thread to attack your view/or you for that matter. I know you guys have a spirited debate going on (youeself,Pheebs,Puro,Kuzi and some others). But this had nothing to do with the bank and everything to do with forced lending guidelines supported by the govt at that time. Regulation , de-regulation, whatever , I am stating a fact and you can accept it even though you may not like or it doesn't fit conveniently into your argument with others or come up with a witty response to downplay it. But it is what it is - a loan made to a minority that could not afford it because the govt thought they were protecting them and giving them the American Dream instead of letting the bank make that decision based on credit worthiness.
I agree Volchor , it is absurd and as you say an ignorant use of race and illogical, agree 100% !!! Puro I also agree with your assessment that it is an example of govt regulation choking an industry ...absolutely !!!
For the record, I don't agree with the government gathering all the information in the world on us either, but right now that is one of our smallest concerns.