Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Today's Posts Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 09-19-2008, 07:09 PM   #31
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
Or the fact, FACT, that the federal budget has grown 8.3% for 2008 over 2007 You can't blame the war,it was going in 2007, Blame the hypocrit, big goverment Dems who run the budget.
And who's signature was at the bottom of the bill?

Yea, checkmate.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 09-19-2008, 07:22 PM   #32
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,555
I have an ingrown whisker. It really hurts.
Nebe is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 05:57 AM   #33
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
You guys are friggin being scammed. Your falling for the oldest trick in the book. Don't watch the people that are porking you. Blame Bush for everything and let the rest ride on blame free.Nancy Pelosy get's off blame free but Newt Gingrich was the most powerfull man in the U.S. Double standards don't play well with me.
Spence, Can you really make the case that the Federal Goverment needs to take more money out of the pockets of hard working people. For the most part rich people work as hard if not harder then most. You don't make 250K or more a year by being lazy and stupid. The goverment has enough of our money and just like you and I, they can do with out if they don't have enough.

If you think that Biden and Obama are going to change things in Washington and they get in, I pray your right. But I feel McCain/Palin are a better bet not to take more money out of our pockets and to make goverment work for the people that pay them. Palin even has the Republicans in Alaska hating her for outing them for bribes from big oil.

Obama has gone from " lowering the taxes for everyone" to "it's the wealthy's patriotic duty to pay more taxes" in less then 2 weeks. We need to have a Republican president just to keep one party from running everything.
buckman is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 06:18 AM   #34
sokinwet
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
sokinwet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rockland, MA
Posts: 651
"Don't watch the people that are porking you" Hey Buck...do you mean like...Oil co.'s, Wall St., multi national Corporate entitys who pay no taxes and send your job overseas, Corporations that "downsize" and send your job down the sh...er? Those people?
sokinwet is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 08:09 AM   #35
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
You guys are friggin being scammed. Your falling for the oldest trick in the book. Don't watch the people that are porking you. Blame Bush for everything and let the rest ride on blame free.Nancy Pelosy get's off blame free but Newt Gingrich was the most powerfull man in the U.S. Double standards don't play well with me.
Pelosi isn't getting off of anything, rather than you said the house has done nothing and I showed you wrong.

New is evil by the way.
Quote:
Spence, Can you really make the case that the Federal Goverment needs to take more money out of the pockets of hard working people. For the most part rich people work as hard if not harder then most. You don't make 250K or more a year by being lazy and stupid. The goverment has enough of our money and just like you and I, they can do with out if they don't have enough.
We have a progressive tax system (i.e. weath redistribution) that has in effect allowed for the Middle Class to rise and make America unique in the world. It's this paradox that the Right can't seem to reconcile behind closed doors.

Personally the tax cut I would see under Obama or McCain is virtually the same. What exactly is the best rate schedule is up for debate, but there's no argument that the top taxpayers have more ability to absorb increased rates. You could also argue that the top taxpayers have been the biggest receipients of stock market gains, and as such should foot a larger part of the burden to socialize our investment banking and mortgage systems as Bush is proposing.

Quote:
If you think that Biden and Obama are going to change things in Washington and they get in, I pray your right. But I feel McCain/Palin are a better bet not to take more money out of our pockets and to make goverment work for the people that pay them. Palin even has the Republicans in Alaska hating her for outing them for bribes from big oil.
And Palin in Alaska was the ear mark princess while McCain has surrounded himself with an army of lobbyists including his top advisors to guide his campaign.

If it's the Government working for the People that you're after, I wouldn't feel confident in a Palin/McCain ticket.

Quote:
Obama has gone from " lowering the taxes for everyone" to "it's the wealthy's patriotic duty to pay more taxes" in less then 2 weeks. We need to have a Republican president just to keep one party from running everything.
I think that was a single line were he probably meant to say most everyone. Regardless it's never been stated tax policy, so to say they've changed position is patently false.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 08:19 AM   #36
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,182
Here ya go Buck, McCain's economic insight working for the people...

Quote:
McCain on banking and health

OK, a correspondent directs me to John McCain’s article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this.

Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/
-spence
spence is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 08:45 AM   #37
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
All I ask is you use the same logic with both parties and both McCain and Obama. Don't get caught up in the blame Bush for everything BS that has allowed the left to skate along blame free.

Calling Palin "the ear mark princess " might be a good sound bite but if you use your same logic towards the other politicians she would come out as a reformer. Earmarks under her administration have come down.
buckman is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 08:49 AM   #38
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by sokinwet View Post
"Don't watch the people that are porking you" Hey Buck...do you mean like...Oil co.'s, Wall St., multi national Corporate entitys who pay no taxes and send your job overseas, Corporations that "downsize" and send your job down the sh...er? Those people?
No, I mean the two faced polititions in both parties that allow it to happen. Taking huge donations to stuff their war chest and then telling you and me that they will stand up against them on our behalf. It's all BS and you guys are playing right into it. Your anger is directed at the wrong people.
buckman is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 09:24 AM   #39
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I guess you think the raising of the minimum wage was a bad thing.

Or the higher fuel economy standards Bush signed into law last year.

I'm sure if I whipped out The Google I could find a lot more, but I won't throw good money after bad.

-spence
I credit Bush for these not the Dems. Look who signed the bottom.Try to stay consistant, at least in the same thread.

Great accomplishments? Why would I be against raising the minimum wage?
buckman is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 09:54 AM   #40
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
I credit Bush for these not the Dems. Look who signed the bottom.Try to stay consistant, at least in the same thread.

Great accomplishments? Why would I be against raising the minimum wage?
If Bush is the one to credit because he signed the bottom of all the good policies, then he should be the sole one to blame for signing bad policies that got us into this mess and no blame can be placed on the Dems (or Repubs for that matter) that are in the legislature.

We all must remember that specific laws signed into place are always bundled with dozens, if not hundreds, of pages of other "laws". That said, signing off on a minimum wage increase could have been a concession made to have other legislation put through. Unfortunately, i don't have time to look up specifics right now.

We have a Legislative Branch for a reason and in most situations, the President is advised to sign as opposed to actually reading every one that passes his desk.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 10:07 AM   #41
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
If Bush is the one to credit because he signed the bottom of all the good policies, then he should be the sole one to blame for signing bad policies that got us into this mess and no blame can be placed on the Dems (or Repubs for that matter) that are in the legislature.

We all must remember that specific laws signed into place are always bundled with dozens, if not hundreds, of pages of other "laws". That said, signing off on a minimum wage increase could have been a concession made to have other legislation put through. Unfortunately, i don't have time to look up specifics right now.

We have a Legislative Branch for a reason and in most situations, the President is advised to sign as opposed to actually reading every one that passes his desk.
I agree 100%. The President can be forced to sign bad legislation in order to get a single thing passed that he is looking for. Like say,a bunch of useless pork that is attached to a bill that will provide our troops with the supplies they need to do the job.
buckman is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 01:30 PM   #42
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
I agree 100%. The President can be forced to sign bad legislation in order to get a single thing passed that he is looking for. Like say,a bunch of useless pork that is attached to a bill that will provide our troops with the supplies they need to do the job.
Yup. And it's these situations where all the ear marks are formed. A Republican wants $100M for their state, well some Democrat better be getting something for his state.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 01:48 PM   #43
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,555
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	mccain-palin-simpsons.jpg
Views:	410
Size:	17.8 KB
ID:	29116  
Nebe is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 02:30 PM   #44
beaver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: N. Shore MA
Posts: 271
Lets be thankful that Mr. Conservative Bush actually stepped in and did something to help the economy. It must have killed him, but he did do what was necessary and probably saved us from the Great Depression II. The reason those liberal folk want to raise taxes is to set up systems of protection against situations like we are witnessing now, or just barely avoided. Republicans are in favor of keeping taxes low and pumping that money into the military, which is good, but with a better equilibrium between the military and the markets the mighty old U.S. could be back to where it belongs. Should the wealthier people be "punished" with a greater tax? No, but are they really being punished? The increase in tax will help on the less wealthy people, maybe those who are lazier and don't make much, but with more a little financial protection those "lazy" folk (me) who make under 250k will pump their money into the economy and badda-bing we are back were we belong.

I like to think of a successful economy as a well broken in VS. Use her to catch big fish, service it, and use her to catch big fish again. Anyone else understand that?
beaver is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 04:47 PM   #45
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
And I say fine, put new systems in place. How about this, don't borrow 500k on a 400k home if you don't make enough to cover the note. The people that had adjustable mortgages, reaped the benifit of low payments while I new better and payed a higher, but set fixed rate.They should not be bailed out. They gambled and lost. The tax payer should not have to pay for bad lending or bad borrowing.
buckman is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 07:07 PM   #46
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
It's our damn money and they just piss it away. We should all be fedup, pissed off and they should all lose their jobs. Dems and Republicans
Agreed, nothing that a big "walking tall stick" wouldn't cure.

Egos and quest for power is what Washington is all about.
Nothing more and nothing less.

Good solid common sense people who would want to put the country first and return the country to it's best have no chance.

It's a wonder anyone runs for public office anymore ,with all the nastiness and slander they and their families have to face.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
Old 09-21-2008, 09:11 AM   #47
Joe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 3,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
And I say fine, put new systems in place. How about this, don't borrow 500k on a 400k home if you don't make enough to cover the note. The people that had adjustable mortgages, reaped the benifit of low payments while I new better and payed a higher, but set fixed rate.They should not be bailed out. They gambled and lost. The tax payer should not have to pay for bad lending or bad borrowing.
What about the executives who lead their institutions into peril? I wonder how many of them were selling short and profiting on the decline of the companies they were leading? That's pretty cool huh? Lead the company down the %$%$%$%$ter, bet against it, make a killing, then get your ass bailed out and keep your whopping salary.....

Joe is offline  
Old 09-21-2008, 09:22 AM   #48
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
What about the executives who lead their institutions into peril? I wonder how many of them were selling short and profiting on the decline of the companies they were leading? That's pretty cool huh? Lead the company down the %$%$%$%$ter, bet against it, make a killing, then get your ass bailed out and keep your whopping salary.....
Exactly...

People taking loans they shouldn't really have is certainly a problem of individual responsibility. There's no question about that.

But Industry has proven time and time again that if left unchecked it will often turn corrupt. There's no question about that.

Many will argue that regulation will create a "Nanny State", but in this case that's exactly what we need to keep the ship afloat. Perhaps instead of bashing the idea of regulation, we should work towards a reasonable middle ground that is in the interest of the people, but I doubt I'll be hearing Rush or Hannity championing the cause any time soon.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 09-21-2008, 12:45 PM   #49
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
What about the executives who lead their institutions into peril? I wonder how many of them were selling short and profiting on the decline of the companies they were leading? That's pretty cool huh? Lead the company down the %$%$%$%$ter, bet against it, make a killing, then get your ass bailed out and keep your whopping salary.....
Those CEOs should be indicted, and if found to have profited from short selling their stock, be required to give back all the profits to their employees and the monies made from their golden parachutes be returned to the company which they ran into the ground back to pay some of the bankruptcy debt.

Send a message.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
Old 09-21-2008, 12:51 PM   #50
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
Oh, and by the way, if Joe Biden thinks it's patriotic for people to pay more taxes,

i would suggest he and Congress take the lead by example ,pay more taxes and take a pay cut.

pffft, what a joke.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
Old 09-21-2008, 04:52 PM   #51
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
People taking loans they shouldn't really have is certainly a problem of individual responsibility. There's no question about that.
-spence[/QUOTE]
you are correct on the first point(first time for everything I guess) but congress under the Clinton administrationcreated an (1992)environment that forced these institutions to make these loans in order to not be labeled racist institutions and be penalized by the govt....that's wasn't regulation, it was social engineering gone amuck...these loans were bundled and sold to the investment institutions who in turn sold them as mortgage backed investments all the while knowing that the feds would guarantee them....it's a mess that's been a long time in the making but it begun in 1977 and "put on steroids" in 1992 as just another feel good move with no consideration of the consequences...govt. never accepts responsibility or fault for crap like this, they just propose an even bigger beaurocracy to "fix" another disaster of their own making...Investor's Business Daily wrote a great article that should be read if you want to understand how this all came about.....
here's the genesis of this mess...some cut and paste huh Spence?
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1977—TITLE VIII (COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT)
AN ACT
To amend certain Federal laws pertaining to community development, housing, and related programs.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
TITLE VIII—COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT
SEC. 801. This title may be cited as the "Community Reinvestment Act of 1977".
SEC. 802. (a) The Congress finds that--
(1) regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;
(2) the convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit services; and
(3) regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.
(b) It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.
SEC. 803. For the purpose of this title--
(1) the term "appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency" means--
(A) the Comptroller of the Currency with respect to national banks;
(B) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with respect to State chartered banks which are members of the Federal Reserve System and bank holding companies;
(C) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation with respect to State chartered banks and savings banks which are not members of the Federal Reserve System and the deposits of which are insured by the Corporation; and
(D)(2) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, by the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, in the case of a savings association (the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) and a savings and loan holding company; *
(2) the term "regulated financial institution" means an insured depository institution (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act);
(3) the term "application for a deposit facility" means an application to the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency otherwise required under Federal law or regulations thereunder for--
{{8-31-00 p.6988.26}}
(A) a charter for a national bank or Federal savings and loan association;
(B) deposit insurance in connection with a newly chartered State bank, savings bank, savings and loan association or similar institution;
(C) the establishment of a domestic branch or other facility with the ability to accept deposits of a regulated financial institution;
(D) the relocation of the home office or a branch office of a regulated financial institution;
(E) the merger or consolidation with, or the acquisition of the assets, or the assumption of the liabilities of a regulated financial institution requiring approval under section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or under regulations issued under the authority of title IV of the National Housing Act; or
(F) the acquisition of shares in, or the assets of, a regulated financial institution requiring approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 or section 408(e) of the National Housing Act.
(4) A financial institution whose business predominately consists of serving the needs of military personnel who are not located within a defined geographic area may define its "entire community" to include its entire deposit customer base without regard to geographic proximity.
SEC. 804. (a) IN GENERAL.--In connection with its examination of a financial institution, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall--
(1) assess the institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution; and
(2) take such record into account in its evaluation of an application for a deposit facility by such institution.
(b) MAJORITY-OWNED INSTITUTIONS.--In assessing and taking into account, under subsection (a), the record of a nonminority-owned and nonwomen-owned financial institution, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency may consider as a factor capital investment, loan participation, and other ventures undertaken by the institution in cooperation with minority- and women-owned financial institutions and low-income credit unions provided that these activities help meet the credit needs of local communities in which such institutions and credit unions are chartered.
(c) FINANCIAL HOLDING COMPANY REQUIREMENT.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--An election by a bank holding company to become a financial holding company under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 shall not be effective if--
(A) the Board finds that, as of the date the declaration of such election and the certification is filed by such holding company under section 4(l)(1)(C) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956,
not all of the subsidiary insured depository institutions of the bank holding company had achieved a rating of "satisfactory record of meeting community credit needs", or better, at the most recent examination of each such institution; and
(B) the Board notifies the company of such finding before the end of the 30-day period beginning on such date.
(2) Limited exclusions for newly acquired insured depository institutions.--Any insured depository institution acquired by a bank holding company during the 12-month period preceding the date of the submission to the Board of the declaration and certification under section 4(l)(1)(C) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 may be
{{8-31-00 p.6988.27}}excluded for purposes of paragraph (1) during the 12-month period beginning on the date of such acquisition if--
(A) the bank holding company has submitted an affirmative plan to the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to take such action as may be necessary in order for such institution to achieve a rating of "satisfactory record of meeting community credit needs", or better, at the next examination of the institution; and
(B) the plan has been accepted by such agency.
(3) DEFINITIONS.--For purposes of this subsection, the following definitions shall apply:
(A) Bank holding company; financial holding company.--The terms "bank holding company" and "financial holding company" have the meanings given those terms in section 2 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.
(B) BOARD.--The term "Board" means the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
(C) INSURED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION.--The term "insured depository institution" has the meaning given the term in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
SEC. 805. Each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall include in its annual report to the Congress a section outlining the actions it has taken to carry out its responsibilities under this title.
SEC. 806. Regulations to carry out the purposes of this title shall be published by each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency and shall take effect no later than 390 days after the date of enactment of this title.
SEC. 807. WRITTEN EVALUATIONS.
(a) REQUIRED.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Upon the conclusion of each examination of an insured depository institution under section 804, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall prepare a written evaluation of the institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.
(2) PUBLIC AND CONFIDENTIAL SECTIONS.--Each written evaluation required under paragraph (1) shall have a public section and a confidential section.
(b) PUBLIC SECTION OF REPORT.--
(1) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.--
(A) CONTENTS OF WRITTEN EVALUATION.--The public section of the written evaluation shall--
(i) state the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency's conclusions for each assessment factor identified in the regulations prescribed by the Federal financial supervisory agencies to implement this Act;
(ii) discuss the facts and data supporting such conclusions; and
{{8-31-00 p.6988.28}}
(iii) contain the institution's rating and a statement describing the basis for the rating.
(B) Metropolitan area distinctions.--The information required by clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall be presented separately for each metropolitan area in which a regulated depository institution maintains one or more domestic branch offices.
(2) ASSIGNED RATING.--The institution's rating referred to in paragraph (1)(C) shall be 1 of the following:
(A) "Outstanding record of meeting community credit needs."
(B) "Satisfactory record of meeting community credit needs."
(C) "Needs to improve record of meeting community credit needs."
(D) "Substantial noncompliance in meeting community credit needs."
Such ratings shall be disclosed to the public on and after July 1, 1990.
(c) CONFIDENTIAL SECTION OF REPORT.--
(1) PRIVACY OF NAMED INDIVIDUALS.--The confidential section of the written evaluation shall contain all references that identify any customer of the institution, any employee or officer of the institution, or any person or organization that has provided information in confidence to a Federal or State financial supervisory agency.
(2) Topics not suitable for disclosure.--The confidential section shall also contain any statements obtained or made by the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency in the course of an examination which, in the judgment of the agency, are too sensitive or speculative in nature to disclose to the institution or the public.
(3) DISCLOSURE TO DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION.--The confidential section may be disclosed, in whole or in part, to the institution, if the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency determines that such disclosure will promote the objectives of this Act. However, disclosure under this paragraph shall not identify a person or organization that has provided information in confidence to a Federal or State financial supervisory agency.
(d) INSTITUTIONS WITH INTERSTATE BRANCHES.--
(1) STATE-BY-STATE EVALUATION.--In the case of a regulated financial institution that maintains domestic branches in 2 or more States, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall prepare--
(A) a written evaluation of the entire institution's record of performance under this title, as required by subsections (a), (b), and (c); and
(B) for each State in which the institution maintains 1 or more domestic branches, a separate written evaluation of the institution's record of performance within such State under this title, as required by subsections (a), (b), and (c).
(2) MULTISTATE METROPOLITAN AREAS.--In the case of a regulated financial institution that maintains domestic branches in 2 or more States within a multistate metropolitan area, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall prepare a separate written evaluation of the institution's record of performance within such metropolitan area under this title, as required by subsections (a), (b), and (c). If the agency prepares a written evaluation pursuant to this paragraph, the scope of the written evaluation required under paragraph (1)(B) shall be adjusted accordingly.
(3) CONTENT OF STATE LEVEL EVALUATION.--A written evaluation prepared pursuant to paragraph (1)(B) shall--
(A) present the information required by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (b)(1) separately for each metropolitan area in which the institution maintains 1 or more domestic branch offices and separately for the remainder of the nonmetropolitan area of the State if the institution maintains 1 or more domestic branch offices in such nonmetropolitan area; and
(B) describe how the Federal financial supervisory agency has performed the examination of the institution, including a list of the individual branches examined.
(e) DEFINITIONS.--For purposes of this section the following definitions shall apply:
(1) DOMESTIC BRANCH.--The term "domestic branch" means any branch office or other facility of a regulated financial institution that accepts deposits, located in any State.
{{8-31-00 p.6988.29}}
(2) METROPOLITAN AREA.--The term "metropolitan area" means any primary metropolitan statistical area, metropolitan statistical area, or consolidated metropolitan statistical area, as defined by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, with a population of 250,000 or more, and any other area designated as such by the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency.
(3) STATE.--The term "State" has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
scottw is offline  
Old 09-21-2008, 04:53 PM   #52
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
continued

couldn't fit it all

SEC. 808. OPERATION OF BRANCH FACILITIES BY MINORITIES AND WOMEN.

(a) IN GENERAL.--In the case of any depository institution which donates, sells on favorable terms (as determined by the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency), or makes available on a rent-free basis any branch of such institution which is located in any predominantly minority neighborhood to any minority depository institution or women's depository institution, the amount of the contribution or the amount of the loss incurred in connection with such activity may be a factor in determining whether the depository institution is meeting the credit needs of the institution's community for purposes of this title.
(b) DEFINITIONS.--For purposes of this section--
(1) MINORITY DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION.--The term "minority institution" means a depository institution (as defined in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act)--
(A) more than 50 percent of the ownership or control of which is held by 1 or more minority individuals; and
(B) more than 50 percent of the net profit or loss of which accrues to 1 or more minority individuals.
(2) WOMEN'S DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION.--The term "women's depository institution" means a depository institution (as defined in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act)--
(A) more than 50 percent of the ownership or control of which is held by 1 or more women;
(B) more than 50 percent of the net profit or loss of which accrues to 1 or more women; and
(C) a significant percentage of senior management positions of which are held by women.
(3) MINORITY.--The term "minority" has the meaning given to such term by section 1204(c)(3) of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989.
SEC. 809. SMALL BANK REGULATORY RELIEF.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), any regulated financial institution with aggregate assets of not more than $250,000,000 shall be subject to routine examination under this title--
{{8-31-00 p.6988.30}}
(1) not more than once every 60 months for an institution that has achieved a rating of "outstanding record of meeting community credit needs" at its most recent examination under section 804;
(2) not more than once every 48 months for an institution that has received a rating of "satisfactory record of meeting community credit needs" at its most recent examination under section 804; and
(3) as deemed necessary by the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency, for an institution that has received a rating of less than "satisfactory record of meeting community credit needs" at its most recent examination under section 804.
(b) No Exception From CRA Examinations in Connection With Applications for Deposit Facilities.--A regulated financial institution described in subsection (a) shall remain subject to examination under this title in connection with an application for a deposit facility.
(c) DISCRETION.--A regulated financial institution described in subsection (a) may be subject to more frequent or less frequent examinations for reasonable cause under such circumstances as may be determined by the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency.
COMPETITIVE EQUALITY BANKING ACT OF 1987
TITLE XII—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 1204. ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE CAPS.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Any adjustable rate mortgage loan originated by a creditor shall include a limitation on the maximum interest rate that may apply during the term of the mortgage loan.
(b) REGULATIONS.--The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of this section.
(c) ENFORCEMENT.--Any violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of the Truth in Lending Act and shall be subject to administrative enforcement under section 108 or civil damages under section 130 of such Act, or both.
(d) DEFINITIONS.--For the purpose of this section--
(1) the term "creditor" means a person who regularly extends credit for personal, family, or household purposes; and
(2) the term "adjustable rate mortgage loan" means any loan secured by a lien on a one- to four-family dwelling unit, including a condominium unit, cooperative housing unit, or mobile home, where the loan is made pursuant to an agreement under which the creditor may, from time to time, adjust the rate of interest.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.--This section shall take effect upon the expiration of 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
scottw is offline  
Old 09-21-2008, 06:37 PM   #53
sokinwet
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
sokinwet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rockland, MA
Posts: 651
Great cut and paste..but CRA has absolutely nothing to do with the current sub prime mortgage mess. Good try though.
sokinwet is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 09:59 AM   #54
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
nice cut and paste from the Huffington Post but a little thin on facts...the 1992 CRA revision is the jumping off point where lending institution practices were changed, revised, reworked and lowered to accomodate government demands or face harsh penalties, CRA lending exploded and the shaky practices spread throughout the industry, looser practices, no money down, 125% equity lending, no income verification all bad practices....it was the seed that began the virus...everyone got into the act and had their hands in the cookie jar from banking to wall street to Mac and Mae to the politicians...and now we'll all be paying for it because in America noone is allowed to fail.... the argument is that a high percentage of failing loans were outside of CRA participants which may be true but all of these shaky loans were made possible by the reaction to the 92 revisions by lenders and the "success" however temporary, of the revision...I'm not saying that the lending in the 2000 was not responsible and I don't think anyone would but if you want to trace this to the root cause it's really not that complicated...."but CRA has absolutely nothing to do with the current sub prime mortgage mess. Good try though. "
read this....why would banks make risky loans that were not profitable??? because the govt. demanded it...without these unsound programs you as an institution risked a bad CRA rating which was/is bad for the growth of your business...I'm not saying what they did in creating these lending programs was right but they were forced into it and they were destined to fail but they set the standard(a lower one) for the entire industry...


Memorandum to the Chairman
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
United States Senate

From: John E. Silvia, Chief Economist
Linda Lord, Chief Counsel
Wayne Leighton, Senior Economist
Dina Ellis, Counsel

July 19, 2000

Federal Reserve Report on
The Performance and Profitability of CRA-Related Lending





CRA Special Lending Programs
A large percentage of CRA special program loans are not profitable. About 39 percent of these loans are not profitable on a per program basis and 44 percent on a per dollar basis. For large institutions, 58 percent of large banks report that their CRA special lending programs are not profitable. This appears to violate the safety and soundness requirements of CRA, which require that CRA lending is to be "consistent with the safe and sound operation" of the financial institution.


According to the report, compared to smaller institutions in the sample, large- and medium-sized institutions report a higher percentage of special program loans that are unprofitable and have higher delinquency rates.


Financial institutions report that for their "special loan programs" they offer reduced interest rates and fee waivers or reductions for about 47 percent of the programs. They also report that they "alter their customary underwriting standards for a large majority of their special lending programs." The most frequently cited underwriting variances are lower down payments, higher debt-to-income ratios, and the acceptance of alternative measures of credit quality. These lower standards would seem to be reflected in profitability measures.


According to the report, delinquency rates are higher on a per program dollar basis than on a per program basis. The study interprets this result as "suggesting that larger programs have higher delinquency rates."


According to the report, "[o]btaining either a satisfactory or outstanding CRA rating is a reason mentioned for about 75 percent of the [CRA special lending] programs." (p
scottw is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 11:52 AM   #55
sokinwet
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
sokinwet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rockland, MA
Posts: 651
Not that 30 years working in the industry give me any special insights but rather than preach I'l state in laymans terms... CRA was designed to push lenders to provide services to the communities they serve. It is not and will never be popular with lenders because CRA requires them to be proactive in their communities and offer concessions that limit their profit. It does not require lenders to loosen credit standards or to make risky loans that they immediately sell on the secondary market for a quick profit. The current mess is the result of deregulation for the benefit of lenders and investors that allowed them to make a fast buck investing in mortgage based secutities ...not for the first time buyer that gets a 5% downpmt. loan.
sokinwet is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 02:49 PM   #56
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
[QUOTE=sokinwet;622363] CRA was designed to push lenders to provide services to the communities they serve. It is not and will never be popular with lenders because CRA requires them to be proactive in their communities and offer concessions that limit their profit. QUOTE]

Would i be wrong in assuming this was meant for communities where people really couldn't afford a house and were really unable to pay back the principal?

Going back to the 1960's to qualify for a mortgage you needed a 20% down payment.
In addition, for a working family, the bank would only take the husband's salary in figuring the payments you could afford ,as it was assumed the wife would stop working at some point after having children.
That was sound principal.

When they started to allow both salaries for payments, people would buy a more expensive house leaving open default if one lost their job.

As always, it's pay me now or pay me later--time to pay the piper at the tax payers expense.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 03:18 PM   #57
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
I don't know about others, but I never read the copy/paste jobs. If someone wants to make a point, some it up in your own words and cite it please.

If it sounds interesting or valid, then I'll go read it.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 03:52 PM   #58
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,555
to sum it up JohnnyD... we're screwed sideways.
Nebe is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 04:22 PM   #59
sokinwet
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
sokinwet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rockland, MA
Posts: 651
"Would i be wrong in assuming this was meant for communities where people really couldn't afford a house and were really unable to pay back the principal?"
Yes, no lender has ever been required to make a loan to a borrower without the ability to pay, however it is against federal law to "redline" areas because of minority or lower income resident concentrations. CRA requirements are for regulated banks over a certain size regardless of the community.....Duxbury or Roxbury...makes no difference. I will add that the majority of "gov. sponsored" first time buyer programs allowing 5% d.pmt. also require 30 yr. fixed rate mortgages and every study I have seen shows the default rate of these loans is comparable to standard mortgage default rates.
Let me give an example of two CRA activities spanning 3 decades that I have been involved in. In 1982 we established a home repair program for owners under 80% of median income and signed a servicing agreement with a local lender. They got CRA credit for servicing our loans at no cost; they also got the deposit to establish the program. This month...a 60+ unit "age restricted/over 62 " affordable rental development receives favorable terms from a big lender who receives CRA credits. Believe me the proforma's have to show ability to pay the loan or the bank wouldn't be stepping up! Nothing is free or done at a loss!
I have been involved in a number of FTHB programs and have seen many cases where mortgage originators, who are paid on commission like a car saleman, have tried to pad borrower income to facilitate approval without borrower knowledge. Without exception, these originators have been dealing with private mortgage co's who have no CRA obligations. When XYZ mtg. co. makes this loan they turn it into immediate profit by selling on the secondary market where it is purchased by greedy investors who are able to purchase mortgage based securities because of deregulation and lack of proper oversight. It is an enormously complex issue that cannot be "blamed" on borrowers, Clinton, Bush, etc. I do believe it is a symptom of the greed that will occur when the government abdicates it's role to govern on our behalf.
sokinwet is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 06:36 PM   #60
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by sokinwet View Post
"Would i be wrong in assuming this was meant for communities where people really couldn't afford a house and were really unable to pay back the principal?"
Yes, no lender has ever been required to make a loan to a borrower without the ability to pay, however it is against federal law to "redline" areas because of minority or lower income resident concentrations. CRA requirements are for regulated banks over a certain size regardless of the community.....Duxbury or Roxbury...makes no difference. I will add that the majority of "gov. sponsored" first time buyer programs allowing 5% d.pmt. also require 30 yr. fixed rate mortgages and every study I have seen shows the default rate of these loans is comparable to standard mortgage default rates.
Let me give an example of two CRA activities spanning 3 decades that I have been involved in. In 1982 we established a home repair program for owners under 80% of median income and signed a servicing agreement with a local lender. They got CRA credit for servicing our loans at no cost; they also got the deposit to establish the program. This month...a 60+ unit "age restricted/over 62 " affordable rental development receives favorable terms from a big lender who receives CRA credits. Believe me the proforma's have to show ability to pay the loan or the bank wouldn't be stepping up! Nothing is free or done at a loss!
I have been involved in a number of FTHB programs and have seen many cases where mortgage originators, who are paid on commission like a car saleman, have tried to pad borrower income to facilitate approval without borrower knowledge. Without exception, these originators have been dealing with private mortgage co's who have no CRA obligations. When XYZ mtg. co. makes this loan they turn it into immediate profit by selling on the secondary market where it is purchased by greedy investors who are able to purchase mortgage based securities because of deregulation and lack of proper oversight. It is an enormously complex issue that cannot be "blamed" on borrowers, Clinton, Bush, etc. I do believe it is a symptom of the greed that will occur when the government abdicates it's role to govern on our behalf.
Thanks, you keep me learnin.

I understand in 2003 and 2005 there were bills introduced for more regulation which may have softened the recent blow but never went through.

What happened there?

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com