Bigfatbillsfan

More along the lines that I understand that I got a good start where others have not. Your not going to tell me that the fact I grew up in the upper middle class doesn't have anything to do with where I am in life now.

Glad I'm starting to get some credibility around here. Even if I am a moron.

I know, that got pretty heated and I'm surprised no one threw a punch.

I agree a little bit with this statement. But to take from personal experience, I grew up in the top 5%. My parents made good money and sent me to a private school and all that other crap. But they didn't hand me everything I wanted. I had to do the work study program to earn part of my tuition. (standing in the kitchen handing out food to the other kids while wearing a hair net. I'm sure you can figure out how that felt) My summers were spent painting classroom walls and waxing the floors. I was walking to school while the other kids were driving brand new cars their parents bought them. I didn't have a car until I cold afford one on my own. They really pushed me to know if I wanted something I really had to work for it. If anything it gave me more of an entitlement mentality. I felt I deserved the # I wanted even more than the kids that didn't have to work to go to school there.

Most of those doors would have a system where you could lock it so it will only open if it senses people on one side. But he would still need to stand by the door to make sure that people weren't walking in while another person was walking out.

Yeah, these kids are stupid to not go to their #1 school due to the fact they can't get the # they want. But it's a big jump from that to OWS. I can remember being pissed that I didn't get to be #26 when I was on the football team in HS. I had to take 21 and I hated that #. Seems stupid now but when you're a kid in love with a certain athlete that wears that # it somehow makes all the difference in the world.

It likes him better since you gave it a scorching case of herpes. So long as the general push is for green energy in the long run. Oil is a finite resource. Green energy is not. If we ever run out of green energy, the sun went out and we're all dead anyway. Better to work toward it now than have it come in shock when we run out.

I would agree with you on the idea that it's laying in all down on 00, but when I say push I mean just that, a push. Movement to green energy should happen slowly over the next 50 years or so. Even then, a certain amount of energy will still have to come from fossil fuels.

Tribalists, freedom fighters, terrorists. You can find lots of names but whatever the case I think we call all agree they're a bunch of douche bags. I don't think that's the problem at all. With the overall power structure being tribal it's a little naive to think that aid is going to end up in the hands of the people that need it. Unless, of course you were making a sarcastic statement.

What I would like to see is a combination of moving to electric cars as well as a push toward green energy. I think drilling in ANWR isn't a bad concession as well as off shore. But the overall push needs to be for green and renewable energy.

Yes, that is a part of what it's about. It's also about lowering our dependence of foreign oil. I'm not a big fan of the alarmist attitude of Gore, but we do know that an increase of global temperature is occurring at the same time as a rise in CO2. It's not hard to put together.

Thank you for the advice. I wouldn't continue to post in here if mudslinging made me feel uncomfortable.

Any way you could expand a little on how liberal policies are responsible for the downfall of Detroit? I don't think it really has much to do with either party or political belief system so much as the moving of manufacturing over seas.

You're right, there are some SERIOUSLY smart and well-educated people on this message board. And looking back on past threads I've seen them take apart and collapse your arguments pretty thoroughly while you call them retarded and stupid. If I'm at the back of the class here, you're sitting right next to me.

I think the part you are referring to is this: How the CRA Works Banks’ lending records are evaluated under the CRA. If a potential borrower applies for a loan for a house, small business, small farm or other purpose, the bank is required to examine the applicant’s creditworthiness and determine if it can extend a loan in a safe and sound manner. The performance context for each bank is different and is a function of the local economy and a bank’s branching structure, business plan, community needs, financial condition and other factors. A bank’s compliance with CRA requirements is evaluated by its regulator, which assigns a rating of substantial noncompliance, needs to improve, satisfactory or outstanding. A bank can build goodwill with the community through a strong CRA rating. But, fundamentally, a bank has an incentive to earn at least a satisfactory rating because falling below that level may result in the denial or delay of applications to open a new branch, merge with another lending institution or expand in other ways. If a regulator has reason to believe that a creditor has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the regulator is required by the statute to refer the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Housing-related discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act that does not involve a pattern or practice, and is not referred to the DOJ, must be referred to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A regulator does not specify which or how many loans, investments or services a bank has to make under the CRA. It assesses local economic and market conditions that might affect the bank’s income and the geographic distribution of its lending, identifies the number and dollar amount of loans to lower-income borrowers or areas, and then judges the bank’s performance relative to its context.[7] Though I don't agree completely with how the CRA works there is nothing in the regulatory language that forces the banks to make predatory loans. There is plenty of blame to go around the CRA is not to blame for the collapse. This paragraph a little farther down the page explains it a little better. Abuses in Subprime Housing Market The subprime market took off in the late 1990s. By 2006, the market had surpassed $600 billion and accounted for one-fifth of mortgage originations. Independent mortgage companies made 46 percent of these loans; banks and thrifts made 29 percent. Affiliates and subsidiaries of banks and thrifts made the remaining 25 percent.[11] While subprime lending existed before the 1990s, the flagrant and widespread abuses in this market did not occur until the late 1990s. The originate-to-distribute model presented the opportunity for independent lending institutions and mortgage brokers to make substantial profits. In this model, originators sell, or “distribute,” loans to the secondary market and have less incentive to scrutinize the riskiness of these loans than if they keep them. Their income and fees are based on volume of loans sold, so their focus is on quantity. Before the subprime market fell, securities backed by these loans yielded high returns and were thus appealing to many investors. In this market, serious delinquencies and foreclosures began to edge up nationwide in 2006 and shot up in 2007 and 2008 (Figure 1). If anything, it was the weakening of the CRA that helped lead to the crisis. However there were many other blocks that fell out of the wall before it came down.

I'm going to try to put this to bed in this post. I am no smarter or more educated than most of the people on this board. Attain was a typo. When I type fast I tend to leave out double letters. For instance sometimes I might type leter instead of letter or litle instead of little. I was dyslexic as a child and still have some holdover problems when it comes to double letters. However, I still misspell plenty of words. This all started because someone thought that procure meant create. The only thing I was trying to do was correct the misinformation. I'm not sure what you get out of calling people idiot all the time but I guess that's just your thing. I left this out the first time to avoid more embarrassment for you but since now it's going to be all about how typos and misspelled words I can inform you that after all are two separate words. Can we put this to bed now? I, however, see that as a good thing.

I was wondering when you were going to start throwing the troll card! I'm not a troll. I come here once a day for my political "fix" I like to talk politics. You're the one who turned this into a pissing contest about spelling and typos.

Here is one such link: http://dallasfed.org/ca/bcp/2009/bcp0901.cfm This is filled with plenty of charts and graphs to back up the information. At the end of it you will find a list of notes and links to help you track back the information they used to write the report. Here is another one: http://Traiger_hinckly_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf This also has many charts and graphs to back up the information given as well as notes at to help you track back the information. Here's one from an liberal organization that you can froth over! http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/201110110011 Have a happy day!!

Still frothing over typos? Could I point out the **** isn't spelled with a c in it?

Wrong again Koko!!! I'm Batman!!

If this is your attempt at deductive reasoning I'd say it isn't your strong suit either. In the coming year I plan on proving that we all don't really exist. The moon is made of string cheese and not Swiss cheese, and then I will top it all off by hyper-warping backward and forward in time with my eyes close all while balancing a pickle on my nose.

Considering that the vast majority of sub-prime loans were handed out by lending institutions that were not even subject to CRA regulation I don't think the CRA and their "enforcers" are responsible.

The circle jerk continues...

Hence the reason that I don't like to start threads with a blog. In the end this is just the opinion of the writer. But it's close enough to my own opinion that I thought it was worth using. You could always clean them yourself before you eat them.

Yeah, this is pretty stupid.