Defaming Bill Clintons Legacy of Hope

[FunSugarDaddy]

Jesus man, can you be anymore short sighted?

The regulations ARE designed to protect consumers!

The fact that they are not enforced or the brokers choose to not abide by them does not negate the purpose of them.

I do not deny there was "predatory" practices going on by many brokers but to suggest they were the major cause of this mess is pure naivety.

You don't appear to understand the concept of " fiduciary duty" It means an advisor has a legal obligation to act in the client best interest and in fact put their best interest ahead of their own.

It specifically said on the Wikipedia link you put up, that for the most part this does not exist in the US.

That being the case could you expand on what you mean by "the regulations ARE designed to protect consumers" and explain how this can be achieved absent a broker having a fiduciary duty to his/her customers, cause I just don't see how anyone can get there without this basic criteria being in place.

btw, this CRA agrument you been flaunting doesn't appear to hold much weight either. When I started reading it on Wikipedia, I came across this:

"The law also does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution; instead the law emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.
There are no specific penalties for non-compliance with the CRA. However, an institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching"

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

FSD...thanks for backing me up with your novel.

By the way what was the interest rate you were being quoted from your US mortgage brokers with 50% down??? (after being declined almost half a dozen times prior to that)

I can't remember - was it 9 or 10%??? (funny...how come its so high when the US fed rate is lower than the BoC rate and you had 50% to put down?)

Luckily, you got your Canadian mortgage when the US dollar was at par -(actually...97% - but hey, who's counting? 3% on $300,000 isn't that much, is it?)

Can't remember exactly. Rate was about in the high 6% range for some and the one that annoyed me the most was one that said I was approved for about 7% which was still too high, then when I read the 30 page loan application it turned out the effective rate was closer to 9%. Needless to say I passed on it. I was actually turned down by 3 insitutions and passed on this one. One of the reasons I was turned down by one was because they weren't taking into account the income only the additional loan. Then said my debt servicing ratio was out of whack. No shit.

The reason the rates were so high was three fold. Banks were taking hug losses on mortgages. They lost big time on the type of investment I wanted.(which to me makes it less risky going forward, but they obviously have a different opinion) and thirdly I'm deemed a foreign national. (ie non a US citizen)

For the truth in lending and non discirimanation crap they have on their applications it seemed to me in actuality they had neither.

Turns out that until recently Canadians were the largest group of purchasers for retirement type property. (ie Florida, Arizona, Hawaii.) the sudden drop in the dollar put a quick end to that.

As far as the 3% comment goes, even though it pisses you off, I'm elated that I actually have an unrealized gain on my hands at this point. I was expecting a break even situation for another year or two. But Too bad you missed the boat cause par ain't happening anytime soon..

btw, FWIW, I wouldn't have bought there if I didn't think the Canadian $$ was going to go down and that there was a distinct possibility that we would get a correction here. Didn't know for sure if we would but it was certainly a likely occurance.

 

[SeekSteadyRegSP]

When Bill Clinton, one of the US greatest President

Have you been drinking?

This man was a common criminal, and yet he was the number one law enforcement person in the country.

 

[Krustee]

That being the case could you expand on what you mean by "the regulations ARE designed to protect consumers" and explain how this can be achieved absent a broker having a fiduciary duty to his/her customers, cause I just don`t see how anyone can get there without this basic criteria being in place.

btw, this CRA agrument you been flaunting doesn`t appear to hold much weight either. When I started reading it on Wikipedia, I came across this:

"The law also does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution; instead the law emphasizes that an institution`s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.
There are no specific penalties for non-compliance with the CRA. However, an institution`s CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching"

You got the link for this ?

As suggested...I didn`t read them, surely your college education should have helped you figure that out. The research you produced is easily found and then copy and pasted. Please don`t try to make it out to be more than what it really is. The fact of the matter is your posts are way too long and they would be better if you got to a point a little quicker. You know, Coles notes version for us uneducated and inexperienced in dealing with legal matters

For more answers on this see the thread I created about it:
https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96244

 

[FortunateOne]

It is a nice thought to think - "Gee wouldn't it be great for everybody to have a home."

Isn't it nice to tell people that you will give them a house with a nice kitchen & a pot & a chicken to cook in that pot?

It's nice to think those thoughts & say those things but unfortunately it is not based in reality.


What would have been good is to act with some fiscal responsibility & put in place a program that could pay for itself without risking the tax payers money.[/SIZE]

This does seem to be a complaint about the Democratic party, policies, and promises, doesn't it?

Now....where did that sentiment originally come from? Oh, right.

It wasn't just chicken. During the presidential campaign of 1928, a circular published by the Republican Party claimed that if Herbert Hoover won there would be "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage."

Despite a landslide victory over Alfred Smith, the first Roman Catholic to run for president, the Republican Party's promise of prosperity was derailed seven months after Hoover took the oath of office. The stock market crash of 1929 plunged the country into the Great Depression and people eventually lost confidence in Hoover.

 

[Krustee]

This does seem to be a complaint about the Democratic party, policies, and promises, doesn't it?


Now....where did that sentiment originally come from? Oh, right.

Despite a landslide victory over Alfred Smith, the first Roman Catholic to run for president, the Republican Party's promise of prosperity was derailed seven months after Hoover took the oath of office. The stock market crash of 1929 plunged the country into the Great Depression and people eventually lost confidence in Hoover.

And how was the stock market crash Hoover's fault?

From Wikipedia:

The nation was prosperous and optimistic, leading to a landslide for Hoover over the Democrat Al Smith. Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency Movement (a major component of the Progressive Era), arguing that a technical solution existed for every social and economic problem.

That position was challenged by the Great Depression, which began in 1929, the first year of his presidency. Hoover tried to combat the Depression with volunteer efforts and government action, none of which produced economic recovery during his term. The consensus among historians is that Hoover's defeat in the 1932 election was caused primarily by failure to end the downward spiral into deep Depression, compounded by popular opposition to prohibition. Other electoral liabilities were Hoover's lack of charisma in relating to voters, and his poor skills in working with politicians. Hoover has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the worst U.S. Presidents.

Sounds an awful lot like the situation Obama is in now.

Time will tell if Obama can pull a Reagan & get the country back on it's feet or if he will have his effigy relegated with the likes of Hoover.

 

[FortunateOne]

And how was the stock market crash Hoover's fault?

Oh, for fkcs sake, wth do you come up with that as a response?

How you can read the same thing anyone else reads and try to spin it away from the actual point the writer is making (or in this case, the quoter lol) is baffling.

 

[FortunateOne]

Quote:
Lou Treadway
October 3, 2008 at 5:14 pm

I find it interesting that the Democrats and more explicitly Pelosi and Obama keep saying that it is the Bush’s administration that has cause the wall street/banking crisis. It is painfully obivious that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 started the downfall of maintaining a sound financial system in favor of affordable housing for low income people. Our first black president,Clinton, in the 1990’s compounded the problem by pressuring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to push for lowering the criteria
for low income people t o obtain loans. Economists at the time warned of the consequences if the housing market were to decline. Guess what, a decade later it did and the abandonment of sound financial practices came home to roost.

If this is an example of the kind of "news" reporter you admire, no wonder your POV is slightly right of right wingnut.

Anyway, all this cut-&-paste, quotatable quotes, and promoting a skewed reality of a country few of us live in is awesome but not worth losing sleep over.

 

[Krustee]

If this is an example of the kind of "news" reporter you admire, no wonder your POV is slightly right of right wingnut.

I must have Alzheimer's cuz I don't remember stating I admired Lou Treadway???

That or how you can read the same thing anyone else reads and try to spin it away from the actual point the writer is making (or in this case, the quoter lol) is baffling.



By the way here's the link to where I got that opinion:
http://theshiningcityblog.com/2008/10/03/cei-cras-harmful-legacy/

 

[FortunateOne]

I must have Alzheimer's cuz I don't remember stating I admired Lou Treadway???

That or how you can read the same thing anyone else reads and try to spin it away from the actual point the writer is making (or in this case, the quoter lol) is baffling.



By the way here's the link to where I got that opinion:
http://theshiningcityblog.com/2008/10/03/cei-cras-harmful-legacy/

Using a quote to support your POV means it is not necessary for you to actually state that you admire the writer. Clearly using it as an example means you do, otherwise why bother.

But, then, you are using people's "blogs" as source material and pretend they are facts to support claims. Why not just state your case without the quotes and links, as they are, in the end, simply your interpretation and opinion. And why start a new thread on the same topic, to requote and re-paste the same info simply because you don't want the detracting posts such as the ones that show up here in your thread, thus making you look like the voice of reason?

Oh, btw, thanks for quoting me and passing it off as your own words. Seems like a common theme?

 

[Bartdude]

Don't waste your breath, folks.

Krustee's vision is simple, narrow, and unwavering: Democrats bad, Clinton bad, Bush good, Reagan good, cons good, liberals evil. Facts are irrelevant, unless he can decontextualize them to support his beliefs.

Yawn.

**clicks ignore button**

 

[Krustee]

Using a quote to support your POV means it is not necessary for you to actually state that you admire the writer. Clearly using it as an example means you do, otherwise why bother.

But, then, you are using people's "blogs" as source material and pretend they are facts to support claims. Why not just state your case without the quotes and links, as they are, in the end, simply your interpretation and opinion. And why start a new thread on the same topic, to requote and re-paste the same info simply because you don't want the detracting posts such as the ones that show up here in your thread, thus making you look like the voice of reason?

Oh, btw, thanks for quoting me and passing it off as your own words. Seems like a common theme?

I'm not afraid of a good debate & in fact I enjoy it.

You think because I post other quotes & sources such as actual quotes by Clinton, Frank, Watt, Cisneros & sources like Frontline & Wikipedia, that I am of a weak mind & not able to think on my own.

The fact is I know DAMN WELL that my opinion holds no merit by anyone here & you would simply argue that it is my opinion & has no basis on fact & of little value.

I have spent quite a few years in college debate & dealing with legal matters in my occupation & that is the reason I do research on subjects & use quotes from sources to give weight my arguments.

It is my prerogative where I find my sources & how I use them.
When there is an absence of empirical evidence you fall back onto the record & use quotes from sources that will bolster your side.

To claim that the research I did on this subject & presented here is worthless, only goes to show that you are not open minded nor capable of sober unbiased thought.

Don't be so amateur.





ps. - I used your quote deliberately.

Don't waste your breath, folks.

Krustee's vision is simple, narrow, and unwavering: Democrats bad, Clinton bad, Bush good, Reagan good, cons good, liberals evil. Facts are irrelevant, unless he can decontextualize them to support his beliefs.

Yawn.

**clicks ignore button**

What, because you are not capable of mounting a decent defense for your point of view you have to act like a 6 year old?

OK, so I'm on ignore now, you've really showed me how superior you are!

By the way, I do not think all Democrats are bad I have the greatest of hope for Obama but I am not sticking my head in the sand over some of the people he is connected with.
Let's say I am watching with skeptical optimism.

Unlike you I am open minded but well informed.

 

[FortunateOne]

I'm not afraid of a good debate & in fact I enjoy it.

You think because I post other quotes & sources such as actual quotes by Clinton, Frank, Watt, Cisneros & sources like Frontline & Wikipedia, that I am of a weak mind & not able to think on my own.

The fact is I know DAMN WELL that my opinion holds no merit by anyone here & you would simply argue that it is my opinion & has no basis on fact & of little value.

I have spent quite a few years in college debate & dealing with legal matters in my occupation & that is the reason I do research on subjects & use quotes from sources to give weight my arguments.

It is my prerogative where I find my sources & how I use them.
When there is an absence of empirical evidence you fall back onto the record & use quotes from sources that will bolster your side.

To claim that the research I did on this subject & presented here is worthless, only goes to show that you are not open minded nor capable of sober unbiased thought.

Don't be so amateur.





ps. - I used your quote deliberately.

Now, was that so hard? All your own words and thoughts, without a multitude of cut/paste/quote/links to muddy up the point.

 

[Krustee]

Bump!
Time to reflect

 

[LightBearer]

Is this Bill?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...SY2SE5XYqAO7p4DCDA&q=clinton+chronicles&hl=en

I mean really people is this the so called "best president"? we've had in recent years. A cokehead, lying piece of garbage, whos body guards keep winding up dead with there heads chopped off.

Now lets take a look at Rahm Emmanuel, I found something funny. Guess what he was doing back in 1991. Remember he's now one of Obamas top advisors.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3616306,00.html

In Obamas FACE
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/01/rahm_emanuel_inside_the_bubble.html

 

[Krustee]

Is this Bill?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...SY2SE5XYqAO7p4DCDA&q=clinton+chronicles&hl=en

I mean really people is this the so called "best president"? we've had in recent years. A cokehead, lying piece of garbage, whos body guards keep winding up dead with there heads chopped off.

Now lets take a look at Rahm Emmanuel, I found something funny. Guess what he was doing back in 1991. Remember he's now one of Obamas top advisors.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3616306,00.html

In Obamas FACE
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/01/rahm_emanuel_inside_the_bubble.html

In the circles I associate we fondly refer to him as "Slick Willy" because he was so good at lying to the people & making them believe he was the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[LightBearer]

In the circles I associate we fondly refer to him as "Slick Willy" because he was so good at lying to the people & making them believe he was the best thing since sliced bread.

Yup same goes with Obama supporters. I'm gonna walk up to one of them and snap my fingers see if it breaks the trance they are under. Rahm Emmanuel left the USA in 1991 to join the IDF Israeli military during the gulf war. He repaired tanks. Then he returns to the USA and now he's running the show. Obama doesnt run SHIT. Clinton never ran SHIT, Bush never ran SHIT. The men behind the curtain run SHIT!

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. -David Rockefeller Memoirs

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time
Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
forty years."It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the worldif we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a
world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers is surely preferable to the national
auto-determination practiced in past centuries." -David Rockefeller speaking to the Trilateral Comission.

Now how hard is this to understand? How is it a conspiracy theory when you have the confession? Enlighten me on Bill Clintons' legacy of coke, I mean hope.