Very clever wording, and correct. The regulations didn’t say you had to loan money to people who were not likely to pay it back, What they did was slap you if you didn’t loan it to them. Subtle, difference in wording – same effect.

 

Sorry about the misspell. I'm having to use IE and it doesn't have a spell checker.

That council meeting shouldn't be doing any kind of prayer to begin with. It looks to me like a publicity stunt to gain support from the Muslim community. Still a big no-no to me.

 

You're letting your religious emotions dictate this, and that's a huge fallicy IMO.

I know another group of people that base everything they do on their religion, or their interpretations of it.

 

There were many banks that had responsible lending practices and didn't have the toxic assets like the big banks.

To be profitable or look good to shareholders they made these garbage loans. Most companies let their stock price dictate all and don't care about the future.

Still regulators nor the gov't told them to be stupid.

The automakers focused on big trucks and weren't ready to deal with the demand for fuel efficient vehicles. Again short sighted looking at today without regard for tomorrow.

 

First of all, the big banks were subject to more government pressures to lend to unqualified borrowers than small banks that could fly under the radar.

The propensity to make bad loans was not just dictated by corporate greed, stock prices and stupidity. Not making bad loans could easily get a bank targeted as racist, or unsympathetic to the poor by a congressman or a regulator.

FWIW, US automakers had to focus on high profit, big vehicles. If they did not, they could never afford their high expenses, including bloated union salaries and retirement benefits.

It is apparent you specialize in a superficial analysis that stops as soon as your reach your pre-determined conclusion of corporate incompetence and greed.

 

KMac, its obvious that your moral compass is broken. Something in your life either frustrated you to rebel against good, who knows what it might be. An absent parent, abuse from other people...I dont know, but unfortunately, many people carry the exact same attitude as you. 'Screw it all, it doesnt matter, do as you want, punish those who capitalize on opportunities because it wasn't me who succeeded...' It's just hard to believe that you can hold an MBA and be a liberal. They are quite contradictory in beliefs. Must be confusing, learning that business strive to make profit, yet you are all for the govnerment control and handing out other people's hard earned money against their will.

How do you sleep at night? You must be very confused!

 

Businesses are certainly allowed to make profits. No I don't subscribe to just giving handouts to people who are lazy and have no intent to help themselves.

However, I don't agree with the current trend that is leading to a small group of people with all the wealth and the populus being indigdent people at the whim of big business. If we lose the middle class, our society will suffer. That is the kind of socioeconomic situation that exists in the 3rd world nations like Haiti.

GOPers like to cite the Community Reivestment Act that was introduced in the 1970's as the reason for the housing crash. That is crazy. The act indicated that if banks were taking deposits in neighborhoods, they had the obligation to lend back to the communities.

The problem that existed was that banks were seeing minorities move into certain areas and assumed home values would drop in those areas creating false risk. They would lend to white areas of similar economic prosperity but not minority areas.

The foreclosures were not just in poor, minority areas. Many are in traditionally middle class and upper middle class neighborhoods. They are the result of bad lending practices not government forcing credit policy.

No one said banks had to be stupid and lower their lending criteriea. They were encouraged to lend at lower rates in disadvantaged areas to help the people. Banks do marketing all the time that leads to smaller margins. People with better credit get better rates, into rates on credit cards, etc.

Home values were skyrocketing and lenders didn't see the end in sight. Even if people defaulted they felt safe. They could refinance them out of problem as in a few months they would have more equity or they could unload the house and still be ahead. When that changed the world fell in on them.

Also fraud happened with mortgage backed securities. The brokers were packaging bad ones with good loans and calling them A rated securities when they weren't. Who are you going to blame that on?

I am not against prosperity. I don't want to beat business down either. Henry Ford angered his peers by paying his workers so much ($5/day). He stated he did so his employees could buy his cars.

Think about it...if we have only a select few that can buy goods/services and the rest are dirt poor...how prosperous is our nation going to be?

 

obama is like the energizer rabbit. he just keeps talking and talking, making less sense as he goes along. every day he is on tv in front of a hand selected crowd. with over 50% of the country thinking he is doing a crappy job then at least half the people up there behind him should be showing signs of disgust and disapointment for what they hear. he is actually giving us all a gift, less democrats after november. even alot of dems dont want to be tied to him. he is doing more for the republican party than any republican could do.

 

There has been society after society that had never heard of the Bilble that ban homosexuality. So your arguement is null.

 

Well lets here some modern day developed countries that ban homo's.

 

That would have nothing to do with your statement that it came only from the Bible.

 

So you think gays shouldn't be given equal rights just because other societies who haven't heard of the bible ban queermo's. Yeah, my argument is null.

 

If they want equal rights they need their own restrooms. Men, women, others.

 

All I said was your argument saying that it was solely because the Bible was against it was null. It does not hold water because other cultures that had never heard of the Bilble banned it as unnatural. All I am saying, is if youare going to point a finger at someone using religeon, gets your facts straight.

 

I'm not making a global point, only a point directed at the USA. I also know that Frank was/is a devout Catholic, and was noting that he uses his religious beliefs to justify discriminating and violating the rights of gays. What societies ban on their own does not affect us, especially if all 85+ countries that do ban homosexuality are all 3rd world countries, with a few 2nd world countries.