There was a special House of Representatives election last night in western PA, in a district Trump won by 20 points. It's the second in a row (that I know of) where the democrats won a seat in a district that Trump easily carried.

The Democrats ran an interesting candidate, young guy early 30s, former marine, very conservative for a democrat. This was not someone from the Warren/Schumer wing of the party.

A very good chance they re-take the house in November.

I'll vote for a Dem like him - someone center, not leftist / Progressive

I'll vote for a Dem like him - someone center, not leftist / Progressive

Same here. No loons from the far left please.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Democrats ran an interesting candidate, young guy early 30s, former marine, very conservative for a democrat. This was not someone from the Warren/Schumer wing of the party.
.

Pro union, pro obama care, pro environment and air/water quality regulations, supports abortion rights, opposed the GOP tax bill. Yes, a veteran and gun owner as are tons of democrats. He is a democrat.

Pro union, pro obama care, pro environment and air/water quality regulations, supports abortion rights, opposed the GOP tax bill. Yes, a veteran and gun owner as are tons of democrats. He is a democrat.

That and people were prob. tired of the POS "Dems. hate the Country, God and the Constitution".

Pro union, pro obama care, pro environment and air/water quality regulations, supports abortion rights, opposed the GOP tax bill. Yes, a veteran and gun owner as are tons of democrats. He is a democrat.

I didn't say he was Pat Buchanan. I said he's not Pelosi/Schumer. I wouldn't vote for him based on a couple of his positions you rattled off, but a lot of people who voted for Trump, chose this guy. There may be a lot of democrats who were in the Marines, but not a lot of liberal democrats.

There was also likely some blowback against the GOP because the seat was vacated by a Republican who was having an affair, who was a total sleaze.

I'd suggest having Trump come campaign for you, just might not be the smartest thing these candidates should be asking for. I don't know if anyone saw most of his rally speech, man what a tool he is, if I were the candidate watching it I'd be thinking; OMG why did I bring him here.

do you guys remember anything???

Obama was the smartest...most popular....most bestest president ever....was fixing everything....and the media kissed his ass and licked his shoes on a daily basis

"Although the President's party usually loses congressional, statewide and local seats in midterm elections, the 2010 midterm election season featured some of the biggest losses since the Great Depression."

Trump is the dumbest, most vile and repulsive president ever....is destroying everything....and the media assaults him on a daily basis

it will be fun to see who loses more....:huh:

I'd suggest having Trump come campaign for you, just might not be the smartest thing these candidates should be asking for. I don't know if anyone saw most of his rally speech, man what a tool he is, if I were the candidate watching it I'd be thinking; OMG why did I bring him here.

If it's a district he won by 20 points, I'm not sure why he wouldn't be able to help. That's what's interesting to me about this. Interesting and very concerning from my perspective.

do you guys remember anything???

Obama was the smartest...most popular....most bestest president ever....was fixing everything....and the media kissed his ass and licked his shoes on a daily basis

"Although the President's party usually loses congressional, statewide and local seats in midterm elections, the 2010 midterm election season featured some of the biggest losses since the Great Depression."

Trump is the dumbest, most vile and repulsive president ever....is destroying everything....and the media assaults him on a daily basis

it will be fun to see who loses more....:huh:

I hear you, and I'm sure you have a point. But the GOP didn't make gains in solidly blue districts in 2010, they took back a lot of purple districts.

And I think the GOP will pick up seats in the Senate. The House will be interesting.

do you guys remember anything???

Are you forgetting a big reason the 2010 mid-terms turned out the way they did was because of the Tea Party rallying around record deficits and terrible unemployment that Obama inherited from Bush?

Are you forgetting a big reason the 2010 mid-terms turned out the way they did was because of the Tea Party rallying around record deficits and terrible unemployment that Obama inherited from Bush?

not possible....we were repeatedly told the tea party terrorists were an irrelevant tiny band of racists and malcontents that could not possibly have had the numbers to matter... let alone cause the historic losses for the O Man

not possible....we were repeatedly told the tea party terrorists were an irrelevant tiny band of racists and malcontents that could not possibly have had the numbers to matter... let alone cause the historic losses for the O Man

A lot more crawled out from under their rocks than expected. Happens with ticks and locusts every so often too. :jester:

not possible....we were repeatedly told the tea party terrorists were an irrelevant tiny band of racists and malcontents that could not possibly have had the numbers to matter... let alone cause the historic losses for the O Man

Occupy Wall Street is having just as much influence, right?

Actually Spence, it started over frustration over a homeowner bailout program that Rick Santilli (spelling) railed against, expressing frustration that those who chose to live within their means, should be forced to bail out those who bought more house than they could afford.

Occupy Wall Street is having just as much influence, right?

Actually Spence, it started over frustration over a homeowner bailout program that Rick Santilli (spelling) railed against, expressing frustration that those who chose to live within their means, should be forced to bail out those who bought more house than they could afford.

What a disaster it would have been for every home owner if the bailout didn't happen and the number of foreclosures were 2-3 times as high. One of Bush and Paulson's best decisions, followed my smart additions from Obama. A huge problem is that regulations that help to reduce the chance of another bust are either already chopped or are on the chopping block with Comrade Clementine in the Maralago House.

We shouldn’t bail out homeowners but the bankers that led them off into the bushes should get bailed out and not end up losing or in jail.
Don’t worry we’ll repeal Dodd Franks because it restricts banking.
History repeats I’ve seen a few real estate bubbles pop in my lifetime, it will be the stock market this time and we’ll be bailing out the ones that are too big to fail
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What a disaster it would have been for every home owner if the bailout didn't happen and the number of foreclosures were 2-3 times as high. One of Bush and Paulson's best decisions, followed my smart additions from Obama. A huge problem is that regulations that help to reduce the chance of another bust are either already chopped or are on the chopping block with Comrade Clementine in the Maralago House.

No one takes any pleasure in watching people file for bankruptcy or get foreclosed on. But a lot of middle class people who live paycheck to paycheck and who do all the right things, are tired of getting punished and being forced to pick up after other people's mistakes. The tea party literally began, when frustrated citizens who didn't make any dumb decisions, and who were struggling through a brutal recession, were told they had to give money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford. They didn't feel obligated to do that. There is some logic to that position.

As usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.

We shouldn’t bail out homeowners but the bankers that led them off into the bushes should get bailed out and not end up losing or in jail.
Don’t worry we’ll repeal Dodd Franks because it restricts banking.
History repeats I’ve seen a few real estate bubbles pop in my lifetime, it will be the stock market this time and we’ll be bailing out the ones that are too big to fail
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The tea party didn't advocate bailing out banks, either. Is a speck of honesty too much to ask?

I didn't say we should or should not bail out homeowners. I was pointing out, correctly, what triggered the birth of the tea party.

"it will be the stock market this time and we’ll be bailing out the ones that are too big to fail"

Many feel we are due for a stock market correction and a recession. The tax overhaul, and especially the reduction in corporate income taxes, may delay that a bit. But it's coming.

No one takes any pleasure in watching people file for bankruptcy or get foreclosed on. But a lot of middle class people who live paycheck to paycheck and who do all the right things, are tired of getting punished and being forced to pick up after other people's mistakes. The tea party literally began, when frustrated citizens who didn't make any dumb decisions, and who were struggling through a brutal recession, were told they had to give money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford. They didn't feel obligated to do that. There is some logic to that position.

As usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.
The greatest irony is when you say someone else oversimplifies. It is like your defense mechanism. Talk about oversimplifying... They didn't want to give money to people who choose to buy more house then they could afford is a grand oversimplification. The majority of foreclosures happened when people lost their jobs and/or went to sell their houses and they were worth relatively nothing. 800000 a month loosing their jobs. Giving people the opportunity to refi at lower rates helped save the economy from depression. The net result was more money for every home owner. Those people you are referring to weren't punished, they were protected from having prior systemic mistakes destroy the economy for decades. Then these tea sippers into power people who want to set up the same conditions that allowed it. We will see where we are in five years if numblypeg gets reelected and they continue down this path.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The greatest irony is when you say someone else oversimplifies. It is like your defense mechanism. Talk about oversimplifying... They didn't want to give money to people who choose to buy more house then they could afford is a grand oversimplification. The majority of foreclosures happened when people lost their jobs and/or went to sell their houses and they were worth relatively nothing. 800000 a month loosing their jobs. Giving people the opportunity to refi at lower rates helped save the economy from depression. The net result was more money for every home owner. Those people you are referring to weren't punished, they were protected from having prior systemic mistakes destroy the economy for decades. Then these tea sippers into power people who want to set up the same conditions that allowed it. We will see where we are in five years if numblypeg gets reelected and they continue down this path.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"They didn't want to give money to people who choose to buy more house then they could afford is a grand oversimplification"

It's simple, I agree. But that's what led to the birth of the tea party. If you want to deny the earth is round to serve your agenda, knock yourself out.

"The majority of foreclosures happened when people lost their jobs and/or went to sell their houses and they were worth relatively nothing"

I think every foreclosure in history was caused by this. What was unique about the 2008 crash, is how many subprime mortgages were out there, houses that people (even when they were still working) never should have qualified for. It was the abandonment of sound mortgage underwriting, combined with the way these crappy mortgages were bundled into financial instruments that almost no one understands (credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations) that caused the crash.

"The net result was more money for every home owner."

if you ignore the fact that the bailout has to be paid for, you might be right. All ideas look great when, during the cost/benefit analysis, you focus on the benefit and ignore the cost.

I'm not saying I was opposed to the bailout, I have more empathy for people in despair than most folks do. I was pointing out what led to the genesis if the tea party, I was not taking a stance on whether or not the bailouts were a good idea,

"Those people you are referring to weren't punished"

They paid for mistakes that others made.

"We will see where we are in five years if numblypeg gets reelected and they continue down this path"

yes we will. Where would you say we are right now, 15 months into his presidency, from an economic perspective? I notice you didn't comment on that. Stock market, unemployment, GDP, homeownership, are those looking good, or no?

And my use of the word 'oversimplification' wasn't a defense mechanism. It was, in my opinion, an accurate depiction of your thoughtless (and yes, simple) implication that conservatives care less about people who struggle, than liberals. It would be very convenient for you if that were true, and if it were true, I'd probably be a liberal. It's not remotely close to being true.

"

And my use of the word 'oversimplification' wasn't a defense mechanism. It was, in my opinion, an accurate depiction of your thoughtless (and yes, simple) implication that conservatives care less about people who struggle, than liberals.
That is a ridiculous leap. I never said it was about caring for people who struggled. It was about the national and international economic disaster it contributed to. It did not affect only the people with a mortgage, it by proxy affected every worker, business owner, the entire fabric of the well being of the country. Yes, that might have motivated Santelli, doesn't mean his ideas weren't short sighted and based on emotion and not a comprehensive evaluation of the potential outcomes. Bailout was a net gain for everyone given the +7 point swing in GDP that followed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No one takes any pleasure in watching people file for bankruptcy or get foreclosed on. But a lot of middle class people who live paycheck to paycheck and who do all the right things, are tired of getting punished and being forced to pick up after other people's mistakes. The tea party literally began, when frustrated citizens who didn't make any dumb decisions, and who were struggling through a brutal recession, were told they had to give money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford. They didn't feel obligated to do that. There is some logic to that position.

As usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.

100 percent in agreement with you there and if others do not agree with that, then they live in fantasy land with orange people.

At 57 I am done with freeloaders. Entitlement is O- V - A OVER!!! You have to EARN it. The I want it all and want it now generation can suck it. I realize there are still plenty of young hard working people setting an example but it seems they are far and few between and it is really sad. I am smart enough to realize when I am old enough for my money to be returned to me, that I will have to make other accommodations for income thanks to our special people we call government.

Maybe it's about choices and accountability, you know , responsibility. I made sacrifices and busted butt to get thru 3 down cycles and never got bailed out by anyone. I help out others as I can whether it is financially when able or by donating my time or blood. Everyone can pitch in their way too, it is their choice. We are supposed to be a free country.

100 percent in agreement with you there and if others do not agree with that, then they live in fantasy land with orange people.

At 57 I am done with freeloaders. Entitlement is O- V - A OVER!!! You have to EARN it. The I want it all and want it now generation can suck it. I realize there are still plenty of young hard working people setting an example but it seems they are far and few between and it is really sad. I am smart enough to realize when I am old enough for my money to be returned to me, that I will have to make other accommodations for income thanks to our special people we call government.

Maybe it's about choices and accountability, you know , responsibility. I made sacrifices and busted butt to get thru 3 down cycles and never got bailed out by anyone. I help out others as I can whether it is financially when able or by donating my time or blood. Everyone can pitch in their way too, it is their choice. We are supposed to be a free country.
So you would have approved more of another depression, rather than a return to economic stability? Taxes weren't raised. They reduced and were at historic lows. The money has come back in multiples. The rate of increase in the deficit dropped. Federally backed loans make enormous amount of money for the government to begin with, but you would have let the entire economy completely tank because of the spirit of it? That is an emotional decision, not sound economic policy.

Artificially postponing recession(not depression) by bailing out your buddies instead of allowing ebbs and flows which seems more stable to me, is a mistake but I am not an economist, I just know right from wrong. The government is not supposed to be in the business of making money, that is not their purpose but you go ahead and ask me stupid conjecture about tanking. If you do things right to begin with instead of repeating the same mistakes, things would be fine.
So everything is just rosey in your world, but others not so much

The tea party literally began, when frustrated citizens who didn't make any dumb decisions, and who were struggling through a brutal recession, were told they had to give money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford. They didn't feel obligated to do that. There is some logic to that position.

As usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.
Jim, as usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.

The HARP program wasn't simply giving money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford, it allowed homeowners underwater because of the housing bubble bursting to refi.

The wasn't the necessarily the homeowner's fault, it was primarily a result of deregulation, predatory lending and corrupt banking practices.

The wasn't the necessarily the homeowner's fault, it was primarily a result of deregulation, predatory lending and corrupt banking practices.

You forgot getting people to buy a home that probably were not ready to buy a home and requiring people to make unsafe loans.

I really hope we are not approaching phase two of this...

Artificially postponing recession(not depression) by bailing out your buddies instead of allowing ebbs and flows which seems more stable to me, is a mistake but I am not an economist, I just know right from wrong. The government is not supposed to be in the business of making money, that is not their purpose but you go ahead and ask me stupid conjecture about tanking. If you do things right to begin with instead of repeating the same mistakes, things would be fine.
So everything is just rosey in your world, but others not so much

The government didn't make money off of HARP. I am not sure where you are getting that. If you are talking about bailing out buddies, I assume you are referring to TARP which was the work of Bush and Paulson. Neither TARP or HARP postponed the recession, the recession had already occurred. The increase in gdp ended the recession. Regulations were put in place were to prevent repeating the same mistakes. First thing the current administration did was reverse many of those regulations setting the table for a repeat. It wasn't a stupid conjecture about tanking, it was about the reality of the potential outcomes of action vs inaction.

You forgot getting people to buy a home that probably were not ready to buy a home and requiring people to make unsafe loans.
That was covered under "predatory lending."

That was covered under "predatory lending."

There was some of that, sure. There was also some reckless risk-taking. I knew people who bought houses that cost 7X their annual income. Stupid.

Spence, I got sucked into a business deal with a good friend 7 years ago (former good fiend). Turned out it was basically a Ponzi scheme, lost about a year's gross pay. What government program can I go to, to get bailed out for my stupidity? Because what my family did, was spend a lot less and I took a job (which I don't especially like) which pays more. Will take 10 years to re-coup. Where's my HARP program that I get to withdraw money from?

Liberals aren't especially keen on the idea of responsibility. Everything is someone else's fault.

There was some of that, sure. There was also some reckless risk-taking. I knew people who bought houses that cost 7X their annual income. Stupid.

Spence, I got sucked into a business deal with a good friend 7 years ago (former good fiend). Turned out it was basically a Ponzi scheme, lost about a year's gross pay. What government program can I go to, to get bailed out for my stupidity? Because what my family did, was spend a lot less and I took a job (which I don't especially like) which pays more. Will take 10 years to re-coup. Where's my HARP program that I get to withdraw money from?

Liberals aren't especially keen on the idea of responsibility. Everything is someone else's fault.
You were ok with Bush bailing out the banks, I take it. Also, if your stupidity (your word) was going to take down the entire economy of the US with it, there would likely be a program. If it were only those people who took those loans affected by it, there would not have been a program. When it causes the entire housing market to collapse and greatly impacts the ability of ALL businesses to borrow money, then it is within the function of the government to step in. At least in the opinion of most economists, the Bush administration, and the Obama administration.

You were ok with Bush bailing out the banks, I take it. Also, if your stupidity (your word) was going to take down the entire economy of the US with it, there would likely be a program. If it were only those people who took those loans affected by it, there would not have been a program. When it causes the entire housing market to collapse and greatly impacts the ability of ALL businesses to borrow money, then it is within the function of the government to step in. At least in the opinion of most economists, the Bush administration, and the Obama administration.
Zim, to help you understand Jim's thought process here's a brief tutorial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf71YotfykQ

You were ok with Bush bailing out the banks, I take it. Also, if your stupidity (your word) was going to take down the entire economy of the US with it, there would likely be a program. If it were only those people who took those loans affected by it, there would not have been a program. When it causes the entire housing market to collapse and greatly impacts the ability of ALL businesses to borrow money, then it is within the function of the government to step in. At least in the opinion of most economists, the Bush administration, and the Obama administration.

"You were ok with Bush bailing out the banks, I take it." No, I was not.

"if your stupidity (your word) was going to take down the entire economy of the US with it, there would likely be a program"

That's a good argument for it. My rebuttal would be, if you don't let crooks/idiots fail, they never learn their lesson, so they have no incentive not to do it again. We cannot know what would have happened had they been allowed to fail.

So because I was individually stupid, instead of collectively stupid, I have to pay for my own mistake, as well as pay for the mistakes that others made that I did not make. Does that sound fair to you?

Zim, to help you understand Jim's thought process here's a brief tutorial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf71YotfykQ

I'm not a sheep like you Spence, I actually think things through, which is why I agree with both sides on different, major issues. I'd like to know a major component of the liberal platform that you disagree with. All ears.

That's a good argument for it. My rebuttal would be, if you don't let crooks/idiots fail, they never learn their lesson, so they have no incentive not to do it again. We cannot know what would have happened had they been allowed to fail.
What if the crooks are the ones writing the policy the idiots have to follow?

What if the crooks are the ones writing the policy the idiots have to follow?

Or rewriting?

I'm not a sheep like you Spence, I actually think things through, which is why I agree with both sides on different, major issues. I'd like to know a major component of the liberal platform that you disagree with. All ears.
Sheep. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHA :doh:

What if the crooks are the ones writing the policy the idiots have to follow?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_ZPh1OkL-s

"I am not sure where you are getting that"

Federally backed loans make enormous amount of money for the government to begin with,

I got it from you.


the bailing out buddies part is the political hacks taking care of bankers but screwing people. The recession is on it's way yet the guy in charge of the rate keeps it low fending off the inevitable. I am talking in general terms not specific to harp or whatever you are fixated on.

Good for regulations, I'm glad they work to prevent mistakes, now keep the corrupt people away and things will go well. I guess time will tell

What if the crooks are the ones writing the policy the idiots have to follow?

Who "had to follow"? You're talking about the people who bought 3x the house they should have? The "had to follow"?

"I am not sure where you are getting that"



I got it from you.


the bailing out buddies part is the political hacks taking care of bankers but screwing people. The recession is on it's way yet the guy in charge of the rate keeps it low fending off the inevitable. I am talking in general terms not specific to harp or whatever you are fixated on.

Good for regulations, I'm glad they work to prevent mistakes, now keep the corrupt people away and things will go well. I guess time will tell
Not fixated on anything. There were two different programs discussed here, though limped together by some. I agree completely about political hacks taking care of the bankers. There is no way to keep corrupt people out of banking since money corrupts and attracts corrupt people to banking. Only defense is regulation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not a sheep like you Spence, I actually think things through, which is why I agree with both sides on different, major issues. I'd like to know a major component of the liberal platform that you disagree with. All ears.

You certainly pat yourself on the back alot. Good Christian value, vanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You certainly pat yourself on the back alot. Good Christian value, vanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I find great delight observing conservatives who wave the flag of Christianity and yet completely lack any understanding of the teachings of Jesus. I’m not pointing my finger at anyone here, just at my observations in life in general.

There’s a lot of people on this planet that need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not fixated on anything. There were two different programs discussed here, though limped together by some. I agree completely about political hacks taking care of the bankers. There is no way to keep corrupt people out of banking since money corrupts and attracts corrupt people to banking. Only defense is regulation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The more that government is centralized and the less it is limited, the greater the connection between the banks and the government--so the more that regulations become favorable for the central banks. It was government regulation that led to the housing bubble, and government stimulus that created the following stock bubble that is now experiencing a correction which is not finished and may get worse and create a new financial "crisis." And that will lead to more regulation to save the ability of government to borrow money by saving the big banks.

And so will continue the growth of that symbiotic relation between our expanding government and the banking system. The real defense against that is a free market in which poor or corrupt banking policies actually lead to failure instead of government protection and greater wealth for the bankers.

If our government regulations protected a free market rather than supporting its cash cow, that would be, as you put it, the "only defense."

The more that government is centralized and the less it is limited, the greater the connection between the banks and the government--so the more that regulations become favorable for the central banks. It was government regulation that led to the housing bubble, and government stimulus that created the following stock bubble...

And so will continue the growth of that symbiotic relation between our expanding government and the banking system.

If our government regulations protected a free market rather than supporting its cash cow, that would be, as you put it, the "only defense."

this can't be correct...democrat politicians would never work in conjunction with evil businesses to rig the system in their favor...they are only concerned for the "little guy" and therefore all of the regulation that they propose and support and pass must naturally fix all that is wrong with the world....can't possibly be the reason for or contribute to any such failures...more government=freedom and fairness for all...ideally...we move to one, government run banking system(after healthcare gets done)...then there will be no more greed and pillaging and profit by those running things

Perhaps the road to serfdom is paved with good intentions?
How will the end of work play into that?

The more that government is centralized and the less it is limited, the greater the connection between the banks and the government--so the more that regulations become favorable for the central banks.
And decentralization can lead to localized corruption as well. See it all the time in communities.

It was government regulation that led to the housing bubble, and government stimulus that created the following stock bubble that is now experiencing a correction which is not finished and may get worse and create a new financial "crisis."
Pretty much exactly the opposite. The bubble was mainly caused by a lack of regulatory control that allowed for cheap and reckless loans, further exacerbated by additional lack of regulation that encouraged corrupt banking practices to obfuscate the risk.

And decentralization can lead to localized corruption as well. See it all the time in communities.


Pretty much exactly the opposite. The bubble was mainly caused by a lack of regulatory control that allowed for cheap and reckless loans, further exacerbated by additional lack of regulation that encouraged corrupt banking practices to obfuscate the risk.

"The bubble was mainly caused by a lack of regulatory control that allowed for cheap and reckless loans,"

You are correct there. But I wonder what would have happened, if the Bush administration had put a stop to that. if the feds passed laws saying banks had to follow more traditional mortgage underwriting, then people would have said Bush was trying to keep poor people from buying houses. But I think you nailed the causes. The Clinton administration, with the GOP congress I think, removed the regulations which prevented traditional banks from getting too involved in these fishy investments.

And decentralization can lead to localized corruption as well. See it all the time in communities.

Government, by definition, is a centralization of power.

Neither decentralization nor its opposite lead to corruption. That's why you "see it all the time in communities." We already have a progressively over-centralized federal system and that does not diminish corruption at local levels. Corruption is inherent in the human condition.

The individual is a central unit of self-government. Corruption and abuse of power at that level of government has the least impact on the entire nation. And the individual has, inherently, total control of his/her morality.

Families are centralized mini-governments. Corruption in a family unit does not affect the entire nation. And the family has near total control of its morality.

Local government is centralized, more or less depending on its structure of checks and balances. The corruption at that level does not affect the entire nation. And the local citizens have more influence in stopping or prosecuting corruption in their community than they have over corruption in the national government. And the numerous localities can show different ways to govern, regulate, and prevent malfeasance or allow growth and good citizenship which can be copied or rejected by other localities or by higher levels of government. And it is easier to change things in response to public demand at the local level. Power is more closely held by the people at the local level than at the national level.

The national government is centralized (it is also referred to as the Central Government), but it is limited in power by a constitutional structure, and its power is further disbursed by its system of checks and balances.

Any corruption or abuse of power at the federal level affects the entire nation. And the possibility of centralized conglomerates of commerce, including banks, having commercial power over the whole country is far more possible, easier, when they become quasi governmental in tandem with federal regulation which favors them. The people have very limited to no control over national power.

The type of centralization of power that is the most to be feared, by those who believe in limited government, is the steady centralization of all government into the hands of the national government--the incorporation of all the powers and rights, from the individual, the family, the local and state, into the power and right of the Central Government.

Corruption, abuse of power, fascism, have their greatest opportunities to thrive under that unitary consolidation of government. That unitary power has limited to no opportunity to observe and compare various policies in action since it is the sole actor. It usually will just repeat its errors with even more force and funding into a downward spiral of economic collapse. And the entire nation will be under its thumb.

Pretty much exactly the opposite. The bubble was mainly caused by a lack of regulatory control that allowed for cheap and reckless loans, further exacerbated by additional lack of regulation that encouraged corrupt banking practices to obfuscate the risk.

It was government regulation that encouraged and coerced the cheap and reckless loans.

"The bubble was mainly caused by a lack of regulatory control that allowed for cheap and reckless loans,"

The Clinton administration, with the GOP congress I think, removed the regulations which prevented traditional banks from getting too involved in these fishy investments.

The traditional banks were directed and encouraged by a regulation that substantially led to these fishy investments--The Community Reinvestment Act.

While you say Traditional Banks, traditional banks no longer exist. The bank that i used to be able to call and say i need this, they would say, for what and put the money in my account, I would stop and sign the paper has been bought and sold 3 times in the past 20 years.
All we have now is corporations funding other corporations, there are no banks that care about the community or their clients.

It was government regulation that encouraged and coerced the cheap and reckless loans.
That's complete nonsense, it was deregulation that allowed lending and securities to become one in the same.

That's complete nonsense, it was deregulation that allowed lending and securities to become one in the same.

It was government regulation that led to people who could not afford to pay for a home loan to get one. That led to bad mortgage notes which were bundled in with good ones and then sold to unknowing suckers. Without the plethora of bad notes, that corrupt bundling would not have occurred or been far less destructive.

It was government regulation that led to people who could not afford to pay for a home loan to get one. That led to bad mortgage notes which were bundled in with good ones and then sold to unknowing suckers. Without the plethora of bad notes, the corrupt bundling would not have occurred.
Your position isn't supported by the facts. CRA loans actually have had a much lower default rate historically. I think this was discussed years ago on this very site.

While you say Traditional Banks, traditional banks no longer exist. The bank that i used to be able to call and say i need this, they would say, for what and put the money in my account, I would stop and sign the paper has been bought and sold 3 times in the past 20 years.
All we have now is corporations funding other corporations, there are no banks that care about the community or their clients.

The smaller banks were not bailed out. Banking became, as did many other corporations, more centralized into fewer large ones. Many small "traditional" small, single owner businesses, like neighborhood corner drug stores, have become scarce or no longer exist. They have been replaced by franchises which are under the umbrella of large, centralized corporations. The regulatory state promotes corporatism over smaller business entities. The big business/big government complex grows.

Your position isn't supported by the facts. CRA loans actually have had a much lower default rate historically. I think this was discussed years ago on this very site.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
I see your reference is a financial gossip blogger who was fired from businessinsider shortly after the piece was authored.

Touche indeed :laugha:

I see your reference is a financial gossip blogger who was fired from businessinsider shortly after the piece was authored.

Touche indeed :laugha:

I see you didn't refute a thing he said. There are plenty of other sources that say the same things. I chose Business Insider because it is a left leaning publication. Maybe that's why they fired him.

I see you didn't refute a thing he said. There are plenty of other sources that say the same things. I chose Business Insider because it is a left leaning publication. Maybe that's why they fired him.
BI isn't left leaning as much as just catering to a younger demographic. Don't need to refute anything he's said, it's all in the archives in this forum.

BI isn't left leaning as much as just catering to a younger demographic. Don't need to refute anything he's said, it's all in the archives in this forum.

Oh . . . in the archives . . .al-l-l-righty then! I like your debate style. And, yeah, Business insider is left leaning. It's in the google archives.

Not fixated on anything. There were two different programs discussed here, though limped together by some. I agree completely about political hacks taking care of the bankers. There is no way to keep corrupt people out of banking since money corrupts and attracts corrupt people to banking. Only defense is regulation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The more that government is centralized and the less it is limited, the greater the connection between the banks and the government--so the more that regulations become favorable for the central banks. It was government regulation that led to the housing bubble, and government stimulus that created the following stock bubble that is now experiencing a correction which is not finished and may get worse and create a new financial "crisis." And that will lead to more regulation to save the ability of government to borrow money by saving the big banks.

And so will continue the growth of that symbiotic relation between our expanding government and the banking system. The real defense against that is a free market in which poor or corrupt banking policies actually lead to failure instead of government protection and greater wealth for the bankers.

If our government regulations protected a free market rather than supporting its cash cow, that would be, as you put it, the "only defense."

this can't be correct...democrat politicians would never work in conjunction with evil businesses to rig the system in their favor...they are only concerned for the "little guy" and therefore all of the regulation that they propose and support and pass must naturally fix all that is wrong with the world....can't possibly be the reason for or contribute to any such failures...more government=freedom and fairness for all...ideally...we move to one, government run banking system(after healthcare gets done)...then there will be no more greed and pillaging and profit by those running things

It was government regulation that led to people who could not afford to pay for a home loan to get one. That led to bad mortgage notes which were bundled in with good ones and then sold to unknowing suckers. Without the plethora of bad notes, that corrupt bundling would not have occurred or been far less destructive.


more reason to not vote for Democrats and their liberal policy, and more reason to vote for more liberties and freedoms and free market

more reason to not vote for Democrats and their liberal policy, and more reason to vote for more liberties and freedoms and free market
The people saying they're promoting your liberties and freedom are robbing you...just saying.

The people saying they're promoting your liberties and freedom are robbing you...just saying.

That's in the archives, right?

The people saying they're promoting your liberties and freedom are robbing you...just saying.

They all lie, let's ban liars

They all lie, let's ban liars
That's why I liked Obama, he was probably one of the most honest presidents in a while.

That's why I liked Obama, he was probably one of the most honest presidents in a while.

no....you just lapped up his BS

no....you just lapped up his BS
Honest guy, family man with a great wife and great kids, went to church...there's a lot to respect.

Honest guy, family man with a great wife and great kids, went to church...there's a lot to respect.

Honest guy=family man with a great wife and great kids, went to church

hard to figure who he worships more..Well Intentioned Hillary or Honest Obe

Your position isn't supported by the facts. CRA loans actually have had a much lower default rate historically. I think this was discussed years ago on this very site.

"Historically" is not the point. In a moment of spare time, I delved into the archives to see if the President's new economic advisor had an opinion about the CRA's effect on the great recession. Larry Kudlow, (very respected, not fired from his job) said this little tidbit:

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/28/are-the-clintons-the-real-housing-crash-villains.html

I see your reference is a financial gossip blogger who was fired from businessinsider shortly after the piece was authored.

Touche indeed :laugha:

Oh, and I decided to check "the archives" to confirm your post about Carney being fired "shortly after the piece was authored." Turns out that it was not shortly after the piece was authored, but 9 months later and had nothing to do with "the piece."

His firing was a surprise move and was motivated not by his article on the effect of the CRA on the housing crises of 2008, but "The general consensus seems to be that Carney is out because he, Blodget, and publisher Julie Hansen could not agree on how to cover and present stories. Blodget pushed for clicks through sensational headlines and features, like galleries, while Carney preferred focusing on breaking stories and in-depth reporting." Sounds like Carney was the more reputable reporter on the magazine, and those firing him were the sleazy ones--http://www.adweek.com/digital/john-carney-fired-from-business-insider/

And Carney did well professionally after leaving BI. As of 2013, "John Carney is a senior editor at CNBC.com, covering Wall Street, hedge funds, financial regulation and other business news. Prior to joining CNBC.com, John was the editor of Clusterstock.com and DealBreaker.com." So he is not a gossip hack, but is a credible financial analyst.

So you tried to twist the story to make it sound like Carney was some incompetent gossip columnist who lost his job because he wrote a fallacious, fake news, story.

Seems like you're the faker. A rather sleazy trick to make the article by Carney that I posted to be stupid and not worth refuting. That you didn't have to refute anything he said--probably because you couldn't. I've read the leftist attempt by the Center For American Progress to acquit the CRA of any fault in the 2008 financial crisis, and Carney, in the article that you could not refute, rebutted that sort of whitewashing of the CRA, point by point.

Honest guy, family man with a great wife and great kids, went to church...there's a lot to respect.

That was some church he went to, boy. You could just feel the love and tolerance oozing out of Rev Wright's sermons.

Obama seems devoted to his family, gotta give him that...Great wife? You say so...

That was some church he went to, boy. You could just feel the love and tolerance oozing out of Rev Wright's sermons.

Obama seems devoted to his family, gotta give him that...Great wife? You say so...
Perhaps you should do a comparison between Reverend Wright and Donald Trump, but you probably have not read any of his sermons.

Perhaps you should do a comparison between Reverend Wright and Donald Trump, but you probably have not read any of his sermons.

I have said a thousand times I don't like Trump's lack of morals. Trump is a sleazy jerk. Wright is a forming at the mouth, howling at he moon, lunatic and bigot.

No one claims that Trump is their spiritual advisor. Rev Wright is a deranged bigot, and not surprisingly, Obama claimed he was his spiritual advisor.

Oh, and I decided to check "the archives" to confirm your post about Carney being fired "shortly after the piece was authored." Turns out that it was not shortly after the piece was authored, but 9 months later and had nothing to do with "the piece."
In the span of a career 9 months is pretty short and fired is fired.

In the span of a career 9 months is pretty short and fired is fired.

You structured you rhetoric to imply that Carney's firing was due to the article on the CRA. 9 months is a long time to fire someone over writing a fallacious article. And the reason for the firing was not even due to the article.

Actually, your post was fallacious, misleading, and a sleazy trick.

I have said a thousand times I don't like Trump's lack of morals. Trump is a sleazy jerk. Wright is a forming at the mouth, howling at he moon, lunatic and bigot.

No one claims that Trump is their spiritual advisor. Rev Wright is a deranged bigot, and not surprisingly, Obama claimed he was his spiritual advisor.

"The government gives them [African Americans] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

• After September 11, 2001, he said: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

• "It just came to me within the past few weeks, y'all, why so many folks are hating on Barack Obama. He doesn't fit the model. He ain't white, he ain't rich, and he ain't privileged. Hillary fits the mold. Europeans fit the mold, Giuliani fits the mold. Rich white men fit the mold. Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong colour. Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car as a black man driving in the wrong… I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it. Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home, Barack was. Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had her people defined as non-persons."

"The government gives them [African Americans] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

• After September 11, 2001, he said: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

• "It just came to me within the past few weeks, y'all, why so many folks are hating on Barack Obama. He doesn't fit the model. He ain't white, he ain't rich, and he ain't privileged. Hillary fits the mold. Europeans fit the mold, Giuliani fits the mold. Rich white men fit the mold. Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong colour. Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car as a black man driving in the wrong… I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it. Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home, Barack was. Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had her people defined as non-persons."

Sounds like the comments of an ignorant, demented, racist.