What's new

America is great and everything is NOT Pres. Trump's fault thread

So much for your thread, @Heathme.
So what's your proof that the government told lenders to give the loans to unqualified persons?

The quote below shows that the loans to average citizens were handled more conservatively and that it was the big banks that were less regulated that caused the problems. Alan Greenspan, Fed Chair at the time, stated this during his hearing before Congress:
The non-depository system grew to exceed the size of the regulated depository banking system,[4] but the investment banks, insurers, hedge funds, and money market funds were not subject to the same regulations. Many of these institutions suffered the equivalent of a bank run,[5] with the notable collapses of Lehman Brothers and AIG during September 2008 precipitating a financial crisis and subsequent recession.[6]

The government also repealed or implemented several laws that limited the regulation of the banking industry, such as the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and implementation of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The former allowed depository and investment banks to merge while the latter limited the regulation of financial derivatives . . . GSE (government-sponsored enterprise) loans were less risky and performed better than loans securitized by more lightly regulated Wall Street banks.[8] They also suggest that CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) loans mandated by the government performed better than subprime loans that were purely market-driven.[7][8] They also present data which suggests that financial firms that lobbied the government most aggressively also had the riskiest lending practices, and lobbied for relief from regulations that were limiting their ability to take greater risks.[8] In testimony before Congress both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Alan Greenspan claimed failure in allowing the self-regulation of investment banks.[10][11]Further, the five largest investment banks at the core of the crisis (including Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers) were not subject to the CRA or other depository banking regulations, and they did not originate mortgages.[12][1]

The point of this is that capitalism needs regulation and if it's unbridled -- Reagan began the era of deregulation -- we get the mess we are in now with the divergence between rich and poor continually growing and a small elite group of billionaires, like the Koch Brothers, controlling everything and growing richer by the day.
 
Last edited:
Oh, so DJ doesn't believe in democracy.

the way you say it sounds bad! look i dont believe you get to vote on my healthcare. you dont get to vote on the money in my pocket. you dont get to vote on forcing me to stand during anthem or to bake a cake!

you see i believe in a constituional republic.

let me simplify it for you

imagine a boat with 100 people!
now a theocracy would be 51 of those people. voting on throwing you overboard for the sharks. or voting to take your stuff.
and since the majority voted. you got to say nothing your stuff is taken or your thrown overboard.

now a republic is the same situation but this time 51 55 60 70 even if every single person except you voted. they cant take your property and you cant be thrown over board! because you that violates your basic rights. not talking about made up rights like healthcare education etc.

i want to live my live free from the majorities decision! if i walk up to a doctor i dont want you vote involved!
oi want to be free to live my live. live and let live. in return i let you live free from my "stupid" worldview"


so there you have it/.


as for the tulip crash. it wasnt totally unregulated. but close to.
but yeah whats wrong with a market crash it is natural and inevitable. but when it crashes the people who made wrong/bad decision pay for it. and so they did. now the taxpayers pay for these crashes. see the difference. repsonoisbilty amnd consequences are for those people.

so you see with the lending situation where the bank forces you to lend money to risky peole who are less likely to pay it back. the responsibilty for being cautious when lending is taking away. so the consequences are also taken byu government. so the taxpayers pay. when their is no repsonsibitly and consequences people tend to do stupid hshit. and not learn from their mistakes
 
Two things.

1. Overkill

2. Sorry, no details but my post about me being stressed was being gentle about it. The primary reason I stepped down as a mod.

Stoked, I'm genuinely concerned for you and I'm not here to add to your stress levels. Yet can there be overkill when standing up against a tyrant? This is happening. It's been in the cards for a while and Trump is getting what he wants. Our populace has been beaten down by his incessant invective to the point where not even our leaders will stand up to him. How much more do we need to see to prove that he is a megalomaniac with blood on his hands?
 
Last edited:
the way you say it sounds bad! look i dont believe you get to vote on my healthcare. you dont get to vote on the money in my pocket. you dont get to vote on forcing me to stand during anthem or to bake a cake!

you see i believe in a constituional republic.

let me simplify it for you

imagine a boat with 100 people!
now a theocracy would be 51 of those people. voting on throwing you overboard for the sharks. or voting to take your stuff.
and since the majority voted. you got to say nothing your stuff is taken or your thrown overboard.

now a republic is the same situation but this time 51 55 60 70 even if every single person except you voted. they cant take your property and you cant be thrown over board! because you that violates your basic rights. not talking about made up rights like healthcare education etc.

i want to live my live free from the majorities decision! if i walk up to a doctor i dont want you vote involved!
oi want to be free to live my live. live and let live. in return i let you live free from my "stupid" worldview"


so there you have it/.


as for the tulip crash. it wasnt totally unregulated. but close to.
but yeah whats wrong with a market crash it is natural and inevitable. but when it crashes the people who made wrong/bad decision pay for it. and so they did. now the taxpayers pay for these crashes. see the difference. repsonoisbilty amnd consequences are for those people
Not sure I understand the logic of your thinking. Sure we have basic rights and in a democratic government they can't be taken away, no matter how many people want to do that. But in an authoritarian government, they can take away everything without any say from you, even your life, as Hitler did.
 


Steve Schmidt is the best. Always delivers the truth of the matter with utmost clarity. I guess the fact that he's a former Republican strategist adds some weight, but, really, it's just his ability to spell the situation right out in the clearest possible terms that makes him stand out in my estimation. I always look forward to his take, and the force with which he delivers the truth of the matter.
 
Not sure I understand the logic of your thinking. Sure we have basic rights and in a democratic government they can't be taken away, no matter how many people want to do that. But in an authoritarian government, they can take away everything without any say from you, even your life, as Hitler did.
of course you dont understand.

in USA you have freedom of speech, and unlike popular believe their is no such thing as hate speech. in the EU it is different. but if the trend continues with this "belief" that their is such a thing a shate speech. if the left has it's way it will be a thing.

in a true republic. you do not get to vote on how i use my vocal cords. you do not get to vote to force me to spend money on healthcare. you do not get to vote to take my money to educate people with my money on your beliefs that go counter against mine! that is the definition of authoritarian. i am minding my own business and you are infringing on me! that is what eventually every government grows into!


and when you impose hate speech laws. you are hiding the truth from me.

take for example you have a nieghbour he is a national socialist, and he wants to plant his national socialist flag he bought with HIS money, With his labor and plant in on HIS property! as a jew who lost 8 branches of my family tree in the holocaust i dont want to see that flag. but my neighbour can plant that flag on his property all he wants. maybe i will build a higher wall.
if he is not allowed to plant them(in usa you can have nazi flags, in eu you can not under special reggulation like museums movie studios etc are allowed) he will still be a naiotnal socialist. but i will never know. so not only did the governemtn(aka the voters) decide to take away rights of my nieghbour. they also took my right away from knowing the turh about my neighbour.

there is this grey area call to action.
for example me and 5 friends talking and planning to rob a bank. maybe we are joking maybe it is a thought excercise maybe it is a real plan. nothing can be done. but the moment 1 starts laying his hand on the guns, 1 the getaway car. 1 on blueprints for the bank. then maybe it's time to put them on trial.

so in short my neighbour should be able to plant his nationalist socialist flag. but when he gets to gether and start building an oven. investigate why he is building the oven. maybe it;'s just a microwvae for drying wood. maybe he ha splans to throw my jew *** into it.

the way the democrats see democracy is sadly the authoritroian way our way when we have majority and in peach orange man when it goes against them.
 
So what's your proof that the government told lenders to give the loans to unqualified persons?

it was called the community reinvestment act!
i hope you accept a time link. if not go research community reinvestment act.
this is a quote from time magazine
In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html.

to be fair to Clinton it was introduced in 1977 by other democrat governments. but clinton put way more presure, and loosened the requirments for the loan!
 
of course you dont understand.

in USA you have freedom of speech, and unlike popular believe their is no such thing as hate speech. in the EU it is different. but if the trend continues with this "belief" that their is such a thing a shate speech. if the left has it's way it will be a thing.

in a true republic. you do not get to vote on how i use my vocal cords. you do not get to vote to force me to spend money on healthcare. you do not get to vote to take my money to educate people with my money on your beliefs that go counter against mine! that is the definition of authoritarian. i am minding my own business and you are infringing on me! that is what eventually every government grows into!


and when you impose hate speech laws. you are hiding the truth from me.

take for example you have a nieghbour he is a national socialist, and he wants to plant his national socialist flag he bought with HIS money, With his labor and plant in on HIS property! as a jew who lost 8 branches of my family tree in the holocaust i dont want to see that flag. but my neighbour can plant that flag on his property all he wants. maybe i will build a higher wall.
if he is not allowed to plant them(in usa you can have nazi flags, in eu you can not under special reggulation like museums movie studios etc are allowed) he will still be a naiotnal socialist. but i will never know. so not only did the governemtn(aka the voters) decide to take away rights of my nieghbour. they also took my right away from knowing the turh about my neighbour.

there is this grey area call to action.
for example me and 5 friends talking and planning to rob a bank. maybe we are joking maybe it is a thought excercise maybe it is a real plan. nothing can be done. but the moment 1 starts laying his hand on the guns, 1 the getaway car. 1 on blueprints for the bank. then maybe it's time to put them on trial.

so in short my neighbour should be able to plant his nationalist socialist flag. but when he gets to gether and start building an oven. investigate why he is building the oven. maybe it;'s just a microwvae for drying wood. maybe he ha splans to throw my jew *** into it.

the way the democrats see democracy is sadly the authoritroian way our way when we have majority and in peach orange man when it goes against them.
I don't want to insult you, DJ, but you're awfully arrogant to say I don't understand. You can't even write a coherent sentence. I have a difficult time understanding what you are saying because the logic doesn't follow precisely. The first amendment allows freedom of speech so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, like inciting people to kill other people, like the big a-hole in the Oval Office, where the toilets are now deep and the cesspools create the most obnoxious odors in American history
 
I don't want to insult you, DJ, but you're awfully arrogant to say I don't understand. You can't even write a coherent sentence. I have a difficult time understanding what you are saying because the logic doesn't follow precisely. The first amendment allows freedom of speech so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, like inciting people to kill other people, like the big a-hole in the Oval Office, where the toilets are now deep and the cesspools create the most obnoxious odors in American history

Did you read my reply Joe Bags ... Alan Greenspan himself stated that this wasn't the cause.

All you doubters and lovers of Trump, please read: Who Stole the American Dream by Hedrick Smith. Below is the URL. For some reason the site is not formatting the link but showing a blank space. Won't even let me post the link so I'll have to be creative:

h t t p s: // www.amazon dot com/Stole-American-Dream-Hedrick-Smith/ dp/ 0812982053

It is extremely well-documented. He wasn't making this up or spouting theories based on his intuition like Herr Meister Trump.
 
I don't want to insult you, DJ, but you're awfully arrogant to say I don't understand. You can't even write a coherent sentence. I have a difficult time understanding what you are saying because the logic doesn't follow precisely. The first amendment allows freedom of speech so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, like inciting people to kill other people, like the big a-hole in the Oval Office, where the toilets are now deep and the cesspools create the most obnoxious odors in American history
sorry oi wa snot born with an american or english spoon up my ***?
English is not my first language. not my second language. not my 3rd language it is actually my 4th. show me how you communicate in your 4th language if it is better then how i can communicate in my 4th language, you get to criticize it! especially if you "speak" 8 languages
i say "speak" because i can understand Portuguese, but i am turrible in speaking it. but can get around a Portuguese country fine! once you know Spanish Portuguese is easy

now to the argument/.
if i wave a Nazi flag it does not infringe on your rights? on what right does it infringe. you don't have a right to no be offended.
if i am singing along to a rap song blasting out the n word what right does it infringe on(assuming i am not blasting it at 130db when i literally start puncturing your eardrum)
tell me what right do my words infringe on. i am waiting!


Freedom of speech only works if there are no stupid hate speech things attached
 
Back
Top