The CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community.[1
So the Community Reinvestment act as passed in 1977 can't really be the problem since that was over 30 year ago..
Wait.. the legislation was revised in 1989..
Quote:
The Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) was enacted by the 101st Congress and signed into law by President G. H. W. Bus
That one passed the House by a vote of 320-97. Looks pretty bipartisan to me.
Arte you that "effing" blind not to read the articles I and Revel posted to find you answer?
You continue to show your blind loyalty to one of the parties to blame for this present situation. I suggest you get back in line with the rest of your "flock" and follow your leader.
It's very simple. Many members of congress don't have the guts to do what needs to be done because they know it's gonna costs them votes from their constituents.
Both parties tried to screw each other by switching votes at the last minute. You can give up trying to blame this on the democrats. There's plenty of blame to go around.
There's a fair amount of polling data to say this isn't the case. The public has not determined that this is a BAD THING. At this point, you could equally hammer a politician for not voting for it. The assumption that congressmen will be hammered in Nov. for a yes vote is still just an assumption.
No matter what happens, something unpleasant is coming down the pike. If this measure goes too far, then politicians who voted for it will get hammered for that. If this measure doesn't go far enough the politicians will get hammered for that.
Both parties will be playing political football with this issue for years....
0 Replies
rosborne979
1
Reply
Tue 30 Sep, 2008 09:01 am
@engineer,
Quote:
There's a fair amount of polling data to say this isn't the case.
I was basing my information on what the congress people themselves reported for their Emails and Phone calls.
0 Replies
parados
1
Reply
Tue 30 Sep, 2008 09:04 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:
Arte you that "effing" blind not to read the articles I and Revel posted to find you answer?
You continue to show your blind loyalty to one of the parties to blame for this present situation. I suggest you get back in line with the rest of your "flock" and follow your leader.
I read the article and pointed out that the CRA was passed in 1977 and the revision to the legislation was in 1989 and passed by an overwhelming majority.
Neither of those facts leads me to the conclusion that the democrats are at fault for the present crisis because of legislation they alone passed.
If you have other evidence to support your conclusion then present it. Otherwise I can only conclude that it is you that is blind and so eager to lay blame that you are willing to ignore facts.
0 Replies
parados
2
Reply
Tue 30 Sep, 2008 09:08 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:
Arte you that "effing" blind not to read the articles I and Revel posted to find you answer?
You continue to show your blind loyalty to one of the parties to blame for this present situation. I suggest you get back in line with the rest of your "flock" and follow your leader.
Of course your original claim was that the Dems forced banks to loan to people that couldn't repay. The CRA says no such thing. It never has said it and no matter how many times you repeat your statement the CRA never will say it.
Banks were urged to make more loans to minorities. They weren't forced to make loans to people that couldn't repay them.
Again with an ear to the ground re what is being said about all this out there on TV, on the radio etc., it seems the bill that was voted down yesterday was a much better bill than the original and wasn't actually a $700 billion bailout; however, nobody bothered to explain it to the rest of us and the angry letters, calls etc. were still pouring into Washington.
The original bill drafted by the Democrats was laden with large chunks going to special groups such as ACORN which anybody, other than the blindly partisan, would find highly repugnant. In order to get a bipartisan bill, so the Democrats don't have to take all the heat on this, all that stuff was taken out of the version presented yesterday.
The Democrats really really don't want a bill that is not equally shared with Republicans so if it blows up, they don't have to take all the blame.
Now it is being suggested that if the Democrats go it alone without Republican input, all the extreme leftwing special interest stuff will be put back in so that the Democrat extremists will vote for it. They don't care then if the President vetoes it because they can blame him.
This is all hearsay, but so far nobody has disputed it.
As usual, woiyo has nothing to support his position - on anything. For him, he thinks a clip on "sheep" has some relevance.
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Tue 30 Sep, 2008 09:46 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
This is all hearsay, but so far nobody has disputed it.
Well, thanks for the gossip then. I'll be sure to give it exactly the consideration which it deserves.
Well excuuuuuuse me. Perhaps you missed the part that this is a discussion. A discussion about what is going on. I only know what is being reported on the television and radio or written accounts. If you have different information that is something other than "gossip" by all means present it. I haven't been able to find anything anywhere that isn't.
This is all hearsay, but so far nobody has disputed it.
Well, thanks for the gossip then. I'll be sure to give it exactly the consideration which it deserves.
Fox would never post anything on here that she hasn't checked and found to be true. She tells us that all the time about how fair and balanced she is.
0 Replies
Brandon9000
2
Reply
Tue 30 Sep, 2008 09:50 am
@Foxfyre,
I'm not sure that people who would fight among themselves, and try to blame each other, and try to exploit the situation for political gain during a serious crisis deserve to succeed.
Well, ignoring those who choose to take shots at me or other members instead of discussing the issue--not you Brandon--there's plenty of that to spread around on both sides of the aisle. The fact is neither Democrats nor Republicans are unified on this. I do think some are acting out of honest conviction and some are acting out of political expediency and/or what they see as opportunity and/or operating out of fear.
I am fascinated watching it all play out and all the dynamics that seem to be involved, or that people think are involved, but I want the problem fixed if it needs to be fixed. And I don't really care what anybody's motives are so long as it gets fixed.
The Republican party can't seem to decide if they are for or against this bill.
Quote:
McCain Decries Lack Of Bipartisanship In Speech Moments Before Releasing Ad Attacking Dems
By Greg Sargent - September 30, 2008, 11:56AM
In public remarks a little while ago, John McCain professed his disappointment with the "lack of bipartisan good will" in dealing with the financial crisis, and called for everyone to "come together in a bipartisan way" in order to chart the way forward.
At around the same time, his campaign released a new ad directly attacking Democrats and Obama and blaming them for the meltdown.
"I am disappointed at the lack of resolve and bipartisan good will among members of both parties to fix this problem," McCain said today in Des Moines, Iowa. "Bipartisanship is a tough thing; never more so when you're trying to take necessary but publicly unpopular action. But inaction is not an option."
"I call on everyone in Washington to come together in a bipartisan way to address this crisis," McCain later said.
A few minutes later, the McCain campaign released this spot attacking Dems and Obama for the meltdown:
Quote:
The ad suggests that Fannie and Freddie are largely to blame for the crisis, and says that McCain pushed for stronger regulation of the mortgage giants, "while Mr. Obama was notably silent."
"Democrats blocked the reforms," the spot continues, and invokes Bill Clinton's criticism of Dems on this front.
McCain made his remarks calling for bipartisanship at around 11:10 this morning. The McCain campaign sent out the ad attacking Dems and Obama at 11:26.
So it only took 16 minutes for the McCain campaign to drop its principal's bipartisan pretenses. Which is actually an improvement over yesterday, when McCain managed to attack Obama over the crisis and then call for no finger-pointing in the space of only two sentences.
Fox, What about all the "other" gossip you throw around on a2k? It sounds more like personal opinion that was supported by what you heard or saw in media. You haven't realized it yet, but it's for you to provide the truth in what you say, not the other way around. Gossip doesn't support "your" gossip. Comprende?
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Tue 30 Sep, 2008 10:12 am
@Cycloptichorn,
What's really funny about this blame game is that McCain is blaming Obama for this government crisis when his party is the one who's supposed to be providing "leadership." He took credit before the vote, then blamed Obama for the results.
