| Name: |
architect
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Intellectuals
|
|
Date:
|
4/1/2009 9:48:20 PM
|
To MM, Water Watcher, Summer lover and the rest. In reading your posts proclaiming your certainty in the beliefs you embrace, I am reminded of a quote I read many years ago. I'm sorry I don't remember who said it and I can't repeat it verbatim but the essence was that a constant truth in our society is that the people who think they possess a super intellect are cocksure with all they believe while those who actually do possess a super intellect are always filled with doubt.
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Intellectuals?
|
|
Date:
|
4/1/2009 10:17:05 PM
|
OK sport; let me see if I get it – if I have my beliefs and do not waver, I am less intelligent than someone who is all over the road? I have my basic lines of thought, and may go slightly left or right from there but am not a politician or a butt-kisser. Do you feel threatened if faced with someone who disagrees with you, or are you just afraid that you may be wrong?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
What do you believe?
|
|
Date:
|
4/1/2009 10:17:21 PM
|
Do you believe the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? Are you sure? Are you cocksure, whatever that means? How about is the earth round? Should you not doubt all that you believe to be true? In fact, should you not doubt the statements you make or are you SURE they are correct?
What I find most ironic about this post is how you like to lecture us about the moral superiority of the moderate, middle of the road person as if what YOU believe is morally superior simply because it is composed of a mishmash of beliefs with no apparent sense or internal consistency. How do you know that everyting you believe is correct and everything you don't believe is incorrect?
You are a walking, talking contradiction of yourself and are guilty of the same thing you accuse us of. You remind me of the expression, "All generalizations are false, including this one". What you are missing is the reality of objective truth. You live in the world of moral relativism or subjectivism, which belief is in and of itself a complete contradiction.
I would stick with architecture if I were you.
|
| Name: |
DJ
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Intellectuals
|
|
Date:
|
4/1/2009 10:50:24 PM
|
I/'m sorry to say this but you are an Ignorant bastard aren't you?
|
| Name: |
rude evin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Intellectuals
|
|
Date:
|
4/1/2009 11:27:16 PM
|
Can you imagine a practicing architect not having faith in the constant truth that 1+ 1=2.........and more complex calculations.....can you say the leaning Tower of Pisa. :-/
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Intelligence
|
|
Date:
|
4/1/2009 11:30:20 PM
|
I think it can be said that highly intelligent people have a strong curiosity. It's not that they give up their principles, but I do think they continually test their principles. They are open to new information and they listen to those who have differing views with the idea that they might learn something new and test their views against new information. Doesn't mean that they will necessarily change their views, but they do consider new information and don't reject it out of hand.
Years ago, a good friend gave me some very good advice. At the time I was griping about younger people in our workplace coming up with "new" ideas that had already been tried and rejected. My friend pointed out to me that it was important to listen carefully to their ideas, because sometimes there might be a new twist in their idea that made it different. Turns out he was right, and I've always been grateful to him for telling me that because it made me think.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Intelligence
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 12:07:46 AM
|
Talullah...Amen to you. Why am I not surprised that you are one of the few that frequents this forum that would have the intellectual capacity to grasp the truth of the quote I posted.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Follow-up
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 12:13:34 AM
|
I can't think of anything more frightening than the mind of a man who is always sure he is right. I can't think of anything more beautiful than than a mind that forever doubting but always seeking.
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Suggestion
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 2:24:12 AM
|
I agree that nobody is always right, but your description sounds more like someone who is lacking in confidence or commitment. I would suggest for more effective communication that you step out from behind mommy and stop yelling generalities at us. Try something more along the lines of “If you believe it is OK to engage in irresponsible spending, I believe you have the I.Q. of a garden rake.” That way we will know what the issue is and how you feel about it.
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Intellectuals
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 2:47:41 AM
|
I think this may be the quote you are searching for .....
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt.
-- Bertrand Russell
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Architect - READ
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 6:45:05 AM
|
yet architect you seem to be so sure you are right. If you didn't you would not have made your initial post. You have other world leaders saying the US is crazy in their spending. You have democrats in congress joining with republicans coming out against the massive wasteful spending, you have the government budget office talking about the dangers of Obama's budget and that it will double the national debt in 4 years.
I guess everyone is wrong and they are not opening their mind and just cocksure (whatever hick meaning that has).
The facts and history is pretty clear that you can't keep spending this way without eventually getting high inflation, much higher interest rates and higher taxes if you don't cut spending.
Inflation and interest rates, not to mention higher taxes, lead to low growth and a stagnat economy. Look at history. No one will expand their business with interest rates and inflation at 10-15%.
It was irresponsible for the goverment to not only allow, but support through legislation, mortgage programs to people that could not afford them that led to this mess .... it is again irresponsible of goverment to run huge deficits and double the national debt for "short term polictical gain".
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Intellectuals
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 8:06:47 AM
|
Thanks
I'm not sure if that is the person or the quote I was recalling, but it makes the same point only better and and in more colorful words. Of course most of the "thinkers" on this forum will dismiss the idea expressed because it comes from a man who espoused "radical","socialist","leftist" opinions. Never mind that he was a an actual intellectual who had some ideas that might be worthy of debate.
|
| Name: |
Lady
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Pointless debate?
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 8:34:28 AM
|
Political Leanings May Be in Your Head
Brains of Liberals, Conservatives May Function Differently
By CARLA WILLIAMS
ABC News Medical Unit
Sept. 10, 2007 —
Ever wonder why Democrats and Republicans can never agree? The answer may lie in the brain.
Liberals and conservatives think in fundamentally different ways, researchers reported in a study published Sunday in the journal Nature Neuroscience.
The study, conducted at New York University, suggested that while conservatives are known to be more structured and persistent when making decisions, liberals are more open to new experiences. Researchers have traced these stereotypes to differences in brain activity.
"Political orientation is based on the fundamental way our brains process information," said lead study author David Amodio, assistant professor of psychology at NYU.
"There is a range of ways that people process information. Some people are more comfortable seeing the pros and cons of a situation. Others are more comfortable to see the situation in only one way."
Conservatives Stay the Course
In the study, participants were seated in front of a computer screen while electrodes recorded electrical activity in their brains.
Two different letters were flashed on the screen for only a few milliseconds. If an M appeared, participants had to press a button in front of them. If a W appeared, participants were told to remain still.
"Eighty percent of the time, the letter M appeared," Amodio said. "The stimulus was so frequent that individuals were just sitting there pressing a button. This behavior became habitual."
Because the letter W appeared only sporadically, it was unexpected and surprised the participants. It took a great deal of mental effort to not press the button allowing researchers to look at how well the subjects dealt with conflicting information and how quickly they could switch their response patterns.
What researchers found was that liberals were better at processing this conflicting information. The liberals were about 10 percent more likely to hold back from an incorrect response than their conservative counterparts.
Conservatives, on the other hand, were more likely to stay the course. They kept pressing the button even when the letter W flashed on the screen.
A Biological Basis?
More importantly, by using an electroencephalogram, or EEG, during the test, researchers found a fundamental difference in brain activity between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals showed much more brain activity in the anterior cingulate, a region of the brain that processes conflicting information. Increased brain activity in this region might explain why liberals were more accurate on the test.
Researchers not affiliated with the study said perhaps the most fascinating part was that the study showed that conservatives and liberals think differently when they are dealing with an abstract laboratory task one that has nothing to do with politics.
"The fact that this difference between conservatives and liberals emerges in such a task demonstrates that the attitudes of conservatives and liberals are entrenched," said Dr. Marco Iacoboni, director of the Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Lab at UCLA.
But psychologist and lawyer Bryant Welch disagreed with the idea that attitudes are entrenched based on political affiliation. Welch, who is writing a book on the subject of brain function and politics titled "State of Confusion," said that despite the study's findings, people with either political belief can be swayed based on experience.
"It simply means they will approach that issue with varying degrees of flexibility or rigidity," he said. "For example, if one has a loved one who has died from poor health care in an HMO and is traditionally conservative, they may support health-care reforms. & What I think the study suggests is that individuals will differ in their predisposition."
Where Differing Minds May Meet
Although the study reveals fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives, it does not solve which came first: political orientation or different methods of thinking.
"Are conservatives and liberals born with these quite opposite cognitive styles, or do they acquire these opposite cognitive styles because of their political beliefs?" Iacoboni asked.
So will Democrats and Republicans ever agree? Maybe not. But "knowing how entrenched the attitudes of 'the other side' are can only help," Iacoboni said.
"It can provide a framework for 'making sense' of how people with opposite political attitudes think. And this is obviously a great starting point for a true, and possibly constructive, dialogue."
|
| Name: |
au67
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Intellectuals
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 9:13:08 AM
|
Do those with super intellect have any common sense, or does chewing gum and walking at the same time present a challenge?
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Pointless debate?
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 10:48:17 AM
|
At least you are realizing how flawed your thinking is, just as it has been proven through history and every other country that has moved toward or tried socialism.
Name just one example of where socialism and big government with high taxes and deficits has been a great modle to follow.
I promise you, if you can even point to one example that I can look to that it has worked I will not only stand corrected, but totally change my view.
But the FACTS are it has NEVER worked ... the only thing that has proven to work time and time again is free enterprise and capitalism.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Please ....
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 10:49:54 AM
|
just one example .... please. I really want to understand the model you think works. I really do. Just one example. Even if it is a small country. Just one little example. Please. Please.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Intelligence
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 2:16:35 PM
|
Isn't it funny that it takes intellectual capacity to understand your posts? Considering the complete lack of facts and logic used when you take one of your confused, ambiguous, moderate finger-in-the-air testing the wind positions it just makes it even funnier to read that post.
Look, I constantly test my ideas against reality. The one thing I completely agree with John Maynard Keynes is that when the facts change I do change my mind. But when history and facts don't change on something I believe I am actually not stupid enough to doubt it simply because someone came up with some pithy quote. Sort of like imagine world peace or coexist or some other stupid bumper sticker.
As I said before, I believe in objective truth. Something that is true regardless of whether some liberal or moderate (aka liberal that is too ashamed to admit what they are) believes it or not. It takes a lot less intellectual capacity to question everything, to doubt everything and to be willing to change your opinions simply because the crowd goes that way. It is why I believe man-made global warming is baloney, it is why I believe that socialism has never worked in all of history, it is why I believe much of what I believe. Because that's what the facts show.
If you want me to change my mind on something bring new facts to light. Don't emote all over the place and don't post stupid polls that say 60% of the respondents think this politician or that one is seen favorably. My God, I am sure Hitler at some point was wildly popular and we see how that worked out. I am not simply going to blindly question my core beliefs because you think I should.
Honestly, every architect in Atlanta that I consider for work will be given that quote and if they agree with it without qualification I will move on.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I didn't think so ...
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 2:24:01 PM
|
It is funny how you the liberals can say the conservatives (really the believers in free enterprise and capitalism) just don't get it. Yet the liberals drink the kool aide, yet can not even point to one success of socialism as to why we should so radically move this country from what made us great and the envy of the world.
Sad. So very sad. So please, from now on Lady, GF ... put up or shut up as you bow to your master. You both must be eating from at the government dinner table. Because if you had a business or the least bit successful, you would see what a horrible shame it is that Obama is destroying this country and moving us from capitalism.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I didn't think so ...
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 2:39:06 PM
|
I can't name a country where socialism has been successful because there isn't one. I can name one where complete unregulated laissez faire capitalism hasn't worked ... The United States of America in the last 12 to 15 years and several other times in the past when capitalism ran out of control and landed in the ditch. It is hard for me to believe, considering what we are going through now, that so many of you believe that reasonable regulation and oversight of an economy is "socialism". Capitalism is the economic system that gives the most to the largest number up to the point when absolute greed and transferring the downside become it's guiding principal.
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I didn't think so ...
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 2:42:23 PM
|
I know - The USSR - nope gone, sorry, my bad, I need to update my maps .... How about Commiefornia - their budget is in the red - nope - budget in red is bad..
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I didn't think so ...
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 3:32:02 PM
|
That is where you are wrong ... the mess we are in today was not the fault of capitalism, but rather bad liberal legislation that is tied to their erroneous socialist thinking.
The banking problem started under Carter with the Community Reinvestment Act that lowered the requirements for government backed loans. It worked so well (ha ha) that under Clinton he lowered the standards even more and fined banks that were not issuing enough loans (that was Obama's job at the law firm he worked at to sue banks that did not give enough of the sub prime loans).
As the Bush administration saw what was going on and the warning signs at Fannie and Friddie, they tried to fix it and the democratic congress blocked the efforts and denied there was a problem.
Funny how Raines that ran Fannie Mae walked with $90 million in bonuses, was an advisor to Obama yet no one is screaming for him to return the money as the government has had to spend $300 billion in bailout of fannie Mae and Freddie mac.
Now how was that capitalism fault. I can assure you that the banks did not want to make these loans.
When I got my first mortgage it was not very easy and needed a real down payment and good credit and a good paying job. Somehow the government thought it was a great idea to give loans to people that could not pay.
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I didn't think so ...
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 3:45:14 PM
|
By the old way of thinking, Capitalism works until the people learn they can vote themselves money. Our Government officials are in many cases sold to the highest bidder, and it is our fault for not insisting on term limits to help control corruption.
|
There is no precedent. Everything has to happen for a first time so what do you do when there is no precedent? I think that's where we are -- in an unprecedented situation. We won't know until years from now who was right and who was wrong.
|
while you may be right ... for me and many, that is a huge gamble, especially with a country that has been great and the model for other countries to all of a sudden say it does not work anymore and go with a different model. Scary.
The cause of the situation we are in was due to lack of government disapline directed at socialist activities to make home ownership available to more of the population. Noble, but if they could not afford it was it really the right thing to do? Aren't they worse off as their dream is shattered and their home is foreclosed and they are back on the street or in an apartment?
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I didn't think so ...
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 7:09:30 PM
|
The mess we are in had it's birth pangs when Phil "it's a mental recession" Gramm pushed through a complete deregulation of this nation's financial foundation which made possible the opaque intermingling of the regulated banks and the unregulated financial institutions such as insurance, equities and bond brokers, etc. It allowed the "invention" of new products which were based on moving money around with somebody getting a commission with each move (A ponzi scheme?). Greed not only ruled the markets, they bragged about it! Now these actions aren't completely responsible for our current situation but it sure is the foundation on which the mess we now face rests. The chicken have returned to the roost.
|
| Name: |
alahusker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I question it..
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 7:44:17 PM
|
Interesting concept, federal deregulation is the source of the problem, versus federal intervention regulating who is eligible for a home mortgage??? Help me out here architect, this does not work well on my T square..
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Suppose
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 8:13:58 PM
|
Your continuous comments about borrowers getting mortgages they can't afford reminds me of an interview with Billy Carter back in the 70's. He was taking advantage of his brother's presidency to make personal appearances for a fee. An interviewer asked if he had any reservations about such appearances. He replied "Well if some folks are dumb enough to pay me to appear I'm sure dumb enough to take their money". I defy you to cite a single verifiable example of a mortgage banker who was forced by the government or any agency therof to give a loan to financially unqualified borrower. The lenders encouraged such loans because they knew they got huge commissions and then could package the bad loans along with the good and sell it down the line for a profit to purchaser who would repeat the trick etc, etc. To a great extent this is brought to you courtesy of Sen. Phil Gramm. I know you don't believe me, so research it for yourself. Oh, and by the way have you completely forgotten W's much ballyhooed "Ownership Society" and the program's pushing home ownership?
|
You are so wrong ... do a little research ... Citi Bank was fined 3 times for not approving enough loans required under the CRA. Since the loans were "backed by the government" through Fannie and Freddie the claim was not approving the loans was discriminatory. CitiBank was even sued by the law firm Obama was at in his early socialist activities.
The CEO of Bank of America was on CNBC this morning talking about this specific thing and said he has tried to return the TARP moneya and the Obama administration will not "allow" thenm to return the money. Why ... because they want control over the banks and without the TARP dollars they can't without nationalizing them.
Wake up ... you are suppose to be so open minded yet you refuse to see what is going on.
Read about the Community reinvestment Act.
Google it.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here you go
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 8:29:09 PM
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
Note the words "require"
URL: CRA
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Architect
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 8:48:32 PM
|
Don't you just hate when the facts prove you wrong. You need to read and research a little more. Open your mind and stop drinking the Kool Aid.
Did you see how the feds would not approve branches or mergers and acquisitions if the banks did not approve enough loans. Also how Fannie and Freddie expanded the program at the governments directions and backed 500 billion of these loans.
So how did this contribute to the crisis now? Well all those loans created an inflationary bubble in housing which was artificial demand. This inflated prices. then as qualified buyers also bought homes at the inflated prices, after the bubble burst, all home prices fell leaving both the "bad" buyers and the good buyers under water causing a default rate never seen before. People just started to walk from their homes since their loans were much higher than the reduced value.
All caused by the liberal and socialist democrats.
Sorry you can't blame Bush for this. But I am sure you will try since it is easier to do than look in the mirrors of the flawed policies of past demoncrats.
|
I'm not defending what was done. It was ridiculous. One neighborhood in VA was dominated by hispanic immigrants. When the housing market started failing and the contruction jobs went away, they just put the key in the door and walked away.
It was disheartening to see two families move into our old neighborhood who would never have been able to afford to be there without the loose lending practices. When I left VA, both houses were in short sale.
My bigger concern these days is that people want the bubble back. Even knowing it was built on a house of cards, but people are angry and want it back. So many people living so far above their means and can't stand that it is over.
Rather than rebuilding the bubble, I hope that we are rebuilding a more stable and more realistic economy. I'm not sure that's what Geitner, Obama and company are doing, but it's what I hope for. The debt scares me. Even though I don't have kids or grandkids, I still don't want to see future generations suffer.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Suppose..YOU ARE SO WRONG
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 9:52:29 PM
|
The Community Development Act outlaws discriminatory credit practices in certain neighborhoods (ie redlining). Before the Act banks and lenders simply refused to loan in certain "less Desirable" areas regardless of the income of the borrower or the value and condition of the property. The Act absolutely does not require loans to individuals who are not financially qualified. To be sure institutions have been fined if they continue to redline (continue to break the law). Do you condone redlining? I own an investment property in a neighborhood that was a redline neighborhood before tht Community Development Act. Once loans were available the area began to turn and now has many renovated and new homes selling for $400,000 up. Once again, I challenge you to cite a single verifiable example where a lender was forced to make a loan to a financially unqualified borrower.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Suppose..YOU ARE SO WRONG
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 9:57:17 PM
|
Sorry, my mistake..."Community Reinvestment Act"...Not "Community Development Act". All else still applies.
|
| Name: |
John boy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Intellectuals
|
|
Date:
|
4/2/2009 11:27:08 PM
|
I remember when I bought my first house that we had to have a certain amount of down payment and our debt level had to be under a certain percentage. When we got into our house we did not buy all new furniture, new cars but had to scrimp by to make ends meet. I sold coke bottles at times on Thursday before payday Friday to get money for gas to go to work the next day. We did this and it made us more responsible with what little money we had. My wife worked at a bank that the loan officer would bring new loans that were just made to be put in a file that they almost knew they would have to write off because they HAD to meet a certain amount of reinvestment loans. Any time you give somebody something for nothing they do not fully appreciate it like if they had worked for it.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Suppose..YOU ARE SO WRONG
|
|
Date:
|
4/3/2009 5:33:25 AM
|
Can't you read? Come one ... you are demonstrating your mind is so closed and refuse to acknowledge the CLEAR FACTS. You are demonstrating typical liberal behavior.
This was socialism and it is yet another example of failed thinking and failed democrat policy.
Aside from what the write up in Wiki, which did an excellent job in recapping, I work with banks all the time at a very senior level and have heard it all about the government arm twisting related to CRA. They did it because it was mandated with threats of fines and would not approve expansion plans etc. Since the loans were "backed" by Fannie and Freddie they were told it is no risk to them.
|
I agree with your last statement. It is scary Obama is still trying to help them stay in their homes by reducing their mortgage balance to a level they can afford. No one ever paid down my mortgage. We also keep hearing talk of another mortgage program to help low income people get homes as a way to solve the housing crisis.
This is nuts, didn't we learn.
I agree with regulation against redlining, but they people still need to qualify for the home without government backing or special programs. That is where the CRA went wrong. They made it illegal to even make someone prove their income or assets. They could lie and there was no penalty.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Intellectuals
|
|
Date:
|
4/3/2009 5:42:19 AM
|
Thank you for sharing that. Great example.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Read This - It may help
|
|
Date:
|
4/3/2009 5:52:22 AM
|
Architect, this is just one example that proves what I am saying. Read the whole thing about the legislative changes made under Clinton. Also, how Bush 1 fixed what Carter had done when it was clear it was a danger to the banking system with the S&L crisis, then Clinton reversed it and made it even worse. It would do you good to read the whole Wiki write up as it deals with facts and references actual law changes and under which administrations.
Legislative changes 1992 (see the $500 billion at the bottom)
Although not part of the CRA, in order to achieve similar aims the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.[9]
In October 2000, in order to expand the secondary market for affordable community-based mortgages and to increase liquidity for CRA-eligible loans, Fannie Mae committed to purchase and securitize $2 billion of "MyCommunityMortgage" loans.[20][21] In November 2000 Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families." It stated that since 1997 Fannie Mae had done nearly $7 billion in CRA business with depository institutions, but its goal was $20 billion.[22] In 2001 Fannie Mae announced that it had acquired $10 billion in specially-targeted Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans more than one and a half years ahead of schedule, and announced its goal to finance over $500 billion in CRA business by 2010, about one third of loans anticipated to be financed by Fannie Mae during that period
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Read This - It may help
|
|
Date:
|
4/3/2009 7:44:18 AM
|
I work for a living and don't have time this morning to read the act. Until then, since you are cocksure I'm wrong, why don't you prove it to me and anyone else interested so by directly quoting the passage from the actual Act which requires anybody to make a loan to anybody else that is not financially qualified to get such a loan. Then, again, cite a single verifiable example of such a loan. If you are right don't just keep saying so over and over as you accuse me of doing, prove it!
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Read This - It may help
|
|
Date:
|
4/3/2009 8:24:11 AM
|
I did ... but you are obviously too lazy to read. As for specific cases ... talk to any senior banking official at a major bank. Watch the news and interviews of CEO's. This is know fact as to what caused the banking failure ... banks were required to issue loans without income/asset verification to meet government quotas. Since the loans were being backed by the feds, they complied.
The act did not start out that way, but did evolve in to meeting quotas or be fined and have expansion or acquistions turned down.
If you would just "open you mind" and read or do a little research, you can stop "attacking" and realize you are wrong.
Aren't you the person that said you are always open minded and can admit when he is wrong. Does not seem that way even when you are presented the facts and links to allow you to read for yourself.
The democrats in an effort to "help people", wind up with bad legislation and hurt the people they want to help because they can not afford it and since the did not work to achieve it, then it makes it easy to walk away when they can't pay.
I feel for you that you are so closed minded not to see that.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here is personal proof
|
|
Date:
|
4/3/2009 8:35:49 AM
|
My son graduated from Auburn 3 years ago. He had a job offer but had not started. He decided to look at condos in MidTown Atlanta to buy. I told him I would not co-sign and would not help with the down payment. He still went out and looked. He came home with a purchase contract and pre approved for a 30 year mortgage for a $190,000 condo. The mortgage was also going to give him $15,000 up front (he did not have to put anything down), and for the first year he only had to pay 80% of the interest with the other 20% adding to principal, the next year it was 90/10, the 3rd through 5th year was interest only, then the mortgage adjusted to current rates each year.
I could not believe it. Fortunately I talked him out of it and showed him what it could do and that he could lose the home etc and it would impact his credit. I was able to get my attorney to get it all cancelled, otherwise he would have been a statistic.
This was a government backed loan and met the "government" requirements (not the banks) for these sub prime loans.
|
| Name: |
AUCATZ
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Intellectuals
|
|
Date:
|
4/3/2009 12:26:17 PM
|
I have to say that there is a difference between being a "smart alec know-it-all" and standing by your principles. It seems to me that all to often people that attack Conservatives as being stuck in one mind-set, narrow minded and such. Sorry to say, that isn't really true. We question, we debate, we are, for the most part, just as smart as the rest of the populus, etc.
In every social strata, every political party, every state and country there is healthy debate. Call me hard-headed, but I don't see our differing views as a reflection of our intelligence (or lack thereof).
Or, am I wrong and that isn't what you were saying?
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here is personal proof NOT
|
|
Date:
|
4/3/2009 5:40:39 PM
|
I'm still waiting for my example. Your son was offered a loan by a lender. The lender did so because they considered a transaction that would profit them. Was there a government agent in the lender's office telling them that they had to make the loan? WHERE'S THE BEEF?
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here is personal proof NOT
|
|
Date:
|
4/3/2009 6:25:52 PM
|
You are too much ... you have all the proof that you can get on a blog board. READ the act. Talk to a banker. You have a brain the size of a pin if you are that blind and close minded. You can't really be that dumb. If you are, I really feel sorry for you.
|
| Name: |
Mack
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hey, John Boy...
|
|
Date:
|
4/3/2009 8:32:39 PM
|
Your values are SOLID, now and forever! Hang in there. The current cycle of uncontrolled spending without payment will come crashing down at some point. Then, those, like you without debt, will be forced to defend what you have from those who can no longer "charge it". Be prepared, whether or not you are an "intellectual".
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here is personal proof NOT
|
|
Date:
|
4/3/2009 9:36:58 PM
|
OK water watcher I read the wikipedia post you recommended regarding thr Community Reinvestment Act (CRA):
Paragraph one and footnote: "The law (CRA) emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities are to be undertaken in a safe and sound manner and does not require any institution to make high risk loans that may bring losses to the institution." from footnote: "nor does the law require institutions to make high risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and financially sound manner."
Now you have made numerous references to all the horror stories in this Wikipedia article. I suppose they are from "Controverses and Criticisms" section. This was a well balanced commentary. Several advocates make negative comments as to CRA and the role it played in the sub-prime fiasco. But, how did you miss the parts where other analyists make the case that the CRA was an excellent program and unrelated in any significant way to the sub-prime mess. I don't know which advocates are right but at least I am willing to read and ponder both sides.
I do hope you read far enough to get to "Legislative Changes 1999"
regarding the GRAMM-Leach-Bliley Act (aka: Financial Services Modernisation Act) which repealed the Glass-Steagall act from the 1930's which your banker friend can probably tell you was largely responsible for rescuing the banks during the Great Depression. Messers Gramm and friends tossed out the restrictions that limited the questionable merger of activities between the strongly regulated banks and mostly unregulated insurance, securities brokers, bond brokers etc. This deregulation lit the fuse.
Now, once again please give me a single verifiable example of a lender being forced by the government to make a loan to a financially unqualified borrower. They made them by the millions and the lenders went after and accepted them by the millions, but neither was being forced into their actions.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here is personal proof NOT
|
|
Date:
|
4/3/2009 9:43:55 PM
|
By the way I might be dumb and have a brain the size of a pin, but I am willing to consider both sides of any issue. Hard to believe an Einstein like you with a brain the size of a watermelon couldn't do the same. Oh, I also called a recently retired community banker friend of mine to get her take on government mandated lending. She wasn't in but I'll let you know what she has to say.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here is personal proof NOT
|
|
Date:
|
4/4/2009 6:09:38 AM
|
You are the most closed minded person on this board. You attack when there is nothing to attack. You live in your little world and close your mind to reality ... that will get you far.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here is personal proof NOT
|
|
Date:
|
4/4/2009 8:06:45 AM
|
I said in my previous post that I enjoyed the wikipedia analysis which you insisted I read. I quoted some of the parts in the very first paragraph that supported my points. I acknowledged the article was well balanced and included discussion of some of the negative points you made, and I wondered how you had missed the sections that supported the claims I had made. This being said, how in the name of heaven is it me who has the closed mind?
Once again, I challenge you to show me a verifiable example.............!
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here is personal proof NOT
|
|
Date:
|
4/4/2009 8:30:30 AM
|
What do you want the name of someone. All you have to do is talk to a senior banking official. Watch the testimony in front of congress, etc. Everything you are given your refuse to accept and want to dismiss it because you "choose" not to believe it is true. That is being closed minded. There was government arm twisting to approve more loans, their was fines to banks not appoving enough of these loans. None of the people meet "normal" credit statndards .... that is why the government had to back them through Fannie and Freddie.
What started out as "no redlining" was expanded because these people did not qualify. As it was expanded and the government backed the loans, it got out of control.
That is why Fannie Mae went from trading at $62 a share to now 75 cents. While the law may not have been written the way it was abused .... it was government agencies - Fannie and Freddie that pushed for more and more of these loans. That is way Raines is gone and made $90 million in bonuses.
Now Fannie is going to pay another $228 million in bonuses and the "government" is allowing it, yet they took the bonuses from AIG with a threat to tax them if they did not return it .... when the democrats wrote the legislation that approved those bonuses. As soon as the american people found out, none of the democrats would admit then wrote and approved the legislation.
Who put that in the bill? The republicans?
OPEN YOUR MIND. Laws can say one thing and then be administered totally different. That is why we have the problem we have.
You can blame the banks, and I am sure they did get carried away, but it was because of the government pressure to do more and more of these loans that started the problem.
If there was not the CRA to begin with and the banks were not backed on the loans and pushed for more .... no I do not think they would have done this on their own.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
One final thought
|
|
Date:
|
4/4/2009 8:43:29 AM
|
All these programs like CRA are socialist programs. they are well intended in an effort not to discriminate .... but the fact of the matter is not everyone qualifies to own a home or is responsible enough. Most of us achieved that "right" through hard work, maintaining good credit. acting responsible. That is available to everyone. There should not be government backed programs to assist a certain class of people. Yes they should enforce non discrimination and be sure it does not occur. But the individual should meet the same credit standards as everyone else to qualify.
We get in trouble when the government tries to legislate and back loans with lower standards than the other 90% that are issued. When those people have saved like the rest of us and have been responsible with credit ... they will get approved just like we did. Why should there be lower standards for some? They don't and can't appreciate as much as when they had to work hard to achieve it.
Just like a kid ... if you give them a car do they take care of it the same as when they had to save and have a part time job to go buy it? I know my first car was a piece of crap, but I loved it because I saved to buy it and it was mine.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here is personal proof NOT
|
|
Date:
|
4/4/2009 9:02:10 AM
|
I hope you don't have a heart attack! Why are you so angry. It must be because I read what you told me to read in order to see the truth of your point and discovered it offered no such proof, In fact the article agreed with my contention that the Community Reinvestment Act, which you by the way introduced to the discussion, required no bank to make a loan to an unqualified borrower and in fact cautioned against such activity. Many loans were made to such individuals and groups, but it was because the Gramm deregulation act and other laws such as CRA made such loans possible and, at least for a while, very very profitable to the entire financial food chain. They made the loans because they could, not because they had to! If housing values were what they were 2 years ago and continuing on their unrealistic rise, the financial community would still be making them. I've enjoyed this "discussion" with you but I'm leaving now to take my grandaughter to a birthday party!
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here is personal proof NOT
|
|
Date:
|
4/4/2009 6:51:02 PM
|
I am not at all angry. I feel sorry for you that you are so closed minded and refuse to see the clear truth and admit the democrats screw up everything. Can you even think of one good piece of legislation that the democrats EVER passed? I can't. But I can think of many that have been horrible for this country starting with social security.
Why is it that every democrat program is socialist in nature, including the screw up with CRA. And now the talk of national health care. Very sad.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here is personal proof NOT
|
|
Date:
|
4/4/2009 8:11:02 PM
|
Your last post is sad indeed.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I almost forgot
|
|
Date:
|
4/4/2009 8:40:04 PM
|
This afternoon I heard back from my friend who retired as a VP in a Community bank about 3 years ago. She was a community banker in north Ga. for over 25 years. I briefly discussed the debate we have been having over the last couple of days as to whether government pressure had been brought to influence banks to make loans to unqualified borrowers. She pointed out her area of expertise was not in loans, especially mortgage loans. Her efforts were in what most of what us little people think of as banking such as checking, CD's, savings etc. She says her bank's main envestment activities had been in loans to developers and builders of upscale residential and commercial projects and that even those conservative activities are now turning into a bad situation. She said she was not aware of any government pressure to get into the low income mortagage market. She was aware of considerable pressure from some on the Board of Directors To get on the "profit gravey train" of such mortagages as some of the bank's larger competitors had. Some board members wanted to "milk the cash cow". She said the larger financial institutions fell into the sub-prime market as a business decision and not because of government pressure. She even remembers seeing notices of seminars on such activities at various meetings and conventions of the financial community in the first half of the decade. Bottom line, she says the CRA pressured lenders to get into the low/moderate lending business but didn't envourage bad loans, and that the "big boys on the block" are now trying to blame their foolish decisions and greed on anyone but themselves.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Civil rights?
|
|
Date:
|
4/4/2009 9:41:00 PM
|
Weren't Democratics (Johnson) responsible for the Civil Rights Amendment? I think that was a good thing for our country.
|
| Name: |
cobra
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Civil rights?
|
|
Date:
|
4/4/2009 10:05:30 PM
|
The bill was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963. I assume LBJ helped get it passed.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Other examples
|
|
Date:
|
4/4/2009 10:21:57 PM
|
What does water watcher think of:
Federal Reserve...Wilson
TVA...FDR
GI Bill...FDR
Marshal Plan...Truman
NATO Treaty...Truman
Civil Rights Act of 1964...JFK/LBJ (mentioned previously)
Airline Deregulation Act...Carter
Low income tax credit...Reagan (oops)
And if you are a real Republican
NAFTA...Clinton
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I almost forgot
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 7:41:55 AM
|
Community bank .... what a joke. I deal every day with banks like JP Morgan Chase, CitiBank, B of A, SunTrust, BB&T, US Bank, etc. Also significant dealsing with Goldman Sachs ... they are the ones that the government arm twists. No the government is not going to reach down to some little community bank. That shows how uninformed and small minded you are.
Also a VP in a community bank is a junior position. Everyone is a VP in a community bank.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here is personal proof NOT
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 7:44:23 AM
|
It is sad that you can not think of one piece of legislation that the democrats implemented that you or the country can be proud of.
That is what is sad. THANK YOU for continuing to prove my point that you are very closed minded.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Civil rights?
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 7:47:13 AM
|
agreed.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Other examples
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 8:02:38 AM
|
I posted several last night. It is indeed sad if you disagree with any of them. It is much sader still if you disagree with ALL of them!
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I agree with some
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 8:04:56 AM
|
Most of your examples are expansions of government not legislation that people have to live with.
I agree that some of what you pointed out were good. But democrats used to be much more like republicans. Kennedy was a tax cutter. It was after Kennedy that the democrat party started moving so far left.
So maybe we should say in the last 30 years.
Yes I think NAFTA was good if not great. We live in a global economy and we should have open trade with all nations. But it should also be both ways.
|
| Name: |
rude evin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Give credit where credit is...
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 8:42:53 AM
|
due.........Johnson was the Dem who sponsored and pushed that legislation thru, but don't forget that major Dem Senators fillibustered that bill and it was R Senators (led by Everett Dirksen) that provided the winning margin.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Give credit where credit is...
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 9:37:09 AM
|
The democrats who tried to kill civil rights bills were southern senators who would be running as Republicans today. The Republicans who were in support were those dreaded MODERATES which for all practical purposes do not exist in the Republican party today!
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Give credit where credit is...
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 10:19:38 AM
|
Ah ... finally you agree that the democrat party has moved far left and the democrats of the 50's and 60's were probably as conservative, if not more so, than republicans today. Where did the democrats go so wrong that they go to the far left and socialist view. So sad that you align with that. Open your mind.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Give credit where credit is...
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 10:51:08 AM
|
Where did the republicans go so wrong that they go to the far right corporate and religious fundamentalist wiew and the best interest of the nation be damned. So sad. Open your mind.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Give credit where credit is...
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 11:29:52 AM
|
You can't even be original in your response. The only thing that the republicans have done wrong is not being more conservative and allowing the democrat congress push through too much wasteful spending when Bush could have and should have veto most of it.
The republicans understand you stimulate growth through lower taxes for individuals and businesses, along with less government. It is better to create opportunities for people rather than handouts. The old saying, give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
More social programs take the drive out of people to better themselves and the more you take away from those that are successful, you eliminate their drive if all you are going to do is penalize their success with more taxation.
Right now Obama is limiting executive pay where the government has provided TARP dollars (which is a loan, not free money). Crazy. So now our most talented people go to foreign banks and our banks get the 2nd rate people that will work for the government limits.
Bank of America wants to return the TARP dollars and the government will not take it back. Why because they want to control things without nationalizing the banks. Yet B of A's first interest payment on the TARP dollars was over $400 million. Watch CNBC's interview with Ken Lewis. Obama himself said he does not want the money returned. Unless you are going to say the CEO lied.
|
Democrats used to be more like Republicans, Republicans more like Democrats, they sometimes got together to pass good legislation but now both parties have retreated to the extreme of both parties.
You know, someone here (forget who) keeps saying that if you are middle of the road, you don't believe in anything. I just don't think that is true. I'm a fiscal conservative with liberal leanings on social issues, but I don't believe in extremes on either side. Doesn't mean that I don't have strong beliefs, but I don't swallow whole all views of either side.
For example, I support creating a favorable climate for business, but not necessarily going overboard in making policies that favor only the wealthy. I don't want the government controlling my charity through high taxes, but I don't want them controlling my body either.
I don't think that I'm so different from many people. I have nothing against the rich and think that people with the drive and ambition to get there should be allowed to live the life that their industriousness has brought them; but at the same time, I believe in social responsibility for those of us that have to try to help those who have fallen on hard times. And I don't think that the government should have to legislate it.
|
| Name: |
Lady
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Give credit where credit is...
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 5:19:40 PM
|
The story of political polarization isn’t a matter of both parties moving to the extreme. It’s hard to make a case that Democrats have moved significantly to the left. On economic issues from welfare to taxes, Bill Clinton governed not just to the right of Carter, but to the right of Nixon. It’s obvious the Republicans have moved to the right. Compare GW Bush to Gerald Ford. Nixon governed on domestic issues as a moderate, perhaps even a liberal by raising taxes, expanding environmental regulation, even seeking to introduce national health insurance. “Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come to America. Let us act now to assure all Americans financial access to high quality medical care.(Nixon - 1974)” This plan broadly resembled John Edward’s plan. Nixon pushed for guaranteed minimum income. He pushed through a tax increase, including the alternative minimum tax which was intended to crack down on the wealthy who managed to use tax shelters to avoid taxes. He passed the Clean Air Act. In foreign affairs, he opened a dialogue with Communist China. The modern Rep party has been taken over by radicals. There hasn’t been any corresponding radicalization of the Dems, so the right-wing takeover of the GOP is the underlying cause of today’s bitter partisanship.
|
| Name: |
rude evin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Give credit where credit is...
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 5:42:03 PM
|
I can't tell if you are spoofing us or not........but you may or may not be clueless..........
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Give credit where credit is...
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 5:47:26 PM
|
personally I think we should move to the fair tax. People with the most income also consume and spend the most and would therefore pay their "fair" share in taxes. That is much better than the government deciding how much of your income to keep.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Give credit where credit is...
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 5:49:49 PM
|
She tries to point out how the right is partisian and by doing so she points out how partisian she is. Unbelievable how liberals lack "self awareneness". It is so funny to see their points.
|
| Name: |
rude evin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Give credit where credit is...
|
|
Date:
|
4/5/2009 6:06:14 PM
|
Easy words to say, but you cannot make a cogent argument that the 'Old Bulls' such as Dick Russell, Herman Talmadge, John Stennis etc, etc would run as Republicans today.........just as Lady can not make a cogent argument that the Democrat party has not moved far left.
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Oklahoma Lakes
»
Lake Hefner
Login
|
Home
