Slip, The language of the law is not the problem, how the law is implemented is the problem. I could go back and find all the articles I've read on it. I did a quick google search though, and this one does a decent job of laying out the history of regulating the financial market. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/02/198_38147.html There are better ones, but I don't have a ton of time to look them all up.
On Mar 3, 5:14 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Coerced? LOL, No KC, that 's not right. The EHO's mission first and > foremost is to create equal housing opportunities for all persons > living in America by administering laws that prohibit discrimination > in housing on the basis of race,color, religion, sex, national origin, > disability, and familial status. > Secondly the EHO administers federal laws and establishes national > policies that make sure all Americans have equal access to the housing > of their choice.http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/index.cfm > Fair Lending: > Discrimination in mortgage lending is prohibited by the federal Fair > Housing Act and HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity > actively enforces those provisions of the law. The Fair Housing Act > makes it unlawful to engage in the following practices based on race, > color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap > (disability): > > * Refuse to make a mortgage loan > * Refuse to provide information regarding loans > * Impose different terms or conditions on a loan, such as > different interest rates, points, or fees > * Discriminate in appraising property > * Refuse to purchase a loan or set different terms or conditions > for purchasing a loan > > http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/lending/index.cfm > > I'm still searching for the part where the government "Coerced" banks > into provide sub prime mortgage loans to people who otherwise could > not afford them. > If banks are in the Business of "Making Money" then why are tax payers > having to bail them out for their poor performance? Bank of America > ran into the wall when they purchased Merrill Lynch for a wopping $50 > billion and then stuck it's hand out for a $45 billion dollar > government bail out. > I know your sweet on GW but the boat is not floating. If a bank > cannot project the long term inability for a homeowner to maintain > payment then that is really "pathetic". Financial wizards? or Income > debt ratio idiots? > I was offered a mortgage $60,000 over what I chose to owe. But I was > able to do my own number crunching to realize that it wouldn't work > for me and that is why I'm still able to comfortably make the monthly > payment. However, as I said before, many people are not able to > understand finance and many get stuck owing more than they have the > capacity to pay. I have a Conventional Fixed at 5.75% and I would > still not want the pressure of covering an extra 60 grand. I was also > offer an ARM but think people are crazy for taking them unless they > are capped at an affordable maximum. I'm not in anyway a financial > expert but I don't think it takes all that much to figure out that > someone cannot pay more than what their income debt ratio will allow. > I don't see how you can say banks haven't any responsibility in all > this. If you want to offer some evidence to refute this then that > would be good. > > On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Slip, > > Are you serious? You think its the financial institutions fault? You > > really think they would have lent to people that they knew wouldn't > > pay them back out of their own free will? The institutions were > > coerced to do what they did. Equal Housing Opportunity, imposed by > > the government, is what brought this whole thing to fruition. The > > institutions would not have lent to people that could not afford to > > pay the institutions back. They are in the business of making money, > > not throwing it away. > > In fact, at the beginning of Bush's administration, he brought the > > problem before the then democratic controlled congress. They gave him > > a big middle finger and told him not to mess with their Equal Housing > > Opportunity pet project. He backed off, and that is why we are in the > > mess we are in now. If he would have went after that as aggressively > > as he did Iraq we might not be in as big of economic mess now. > > > On Mar 2, 9:27 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I apologize for the belated welcome but nevertheless, Welcome! > > > What you have to understand, wood, is that many people have not the > > > slightest idea of financial calculation and are "told" by financial > > > experts that they "can" afford the house, the car, the credit card. > > > We cannot blame the people alone but more so the financial > > > institutions that have taken advantage of those who cannot perceive > > > their own financial worth and capability of repayment. The US > > > unfortunately is full of sharks that have taken control of government, > > > taken control of the poor situations in which people live. > > > Who of you out there would not want to have a better home, car, and > > > other amenities in life? > > > What is happening now is an "Atrocity" perpetrated by the wealthy in > > > control of the government. > > > > On Mar 2, 8:02 pm, wood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > As much as I would love to blame, the government for this mess, but > > > > the government is not entirely to blame—The problem is closer to home. > > > > People only have themselves to blame for putting themselves into > > > > situation they could have avoid only if they were mentally stronger, > > > > and not be blinded by false dreams and value. In trying to live the > > > > “American dreams” people makes premature decision; buying house they > > > > know they cannot afford, cars they can’t maintain… All for what? > > > > People need to change their outlook on life and stop falling victim to > > > > mind imprisonment. In the drive to establish independency and > > > > individuality, everyone has become the same. > > > > > On Feb 26, 4:17 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > "... Now our government is trying to keep deadbeats in houses they > > > > > can't afford and shouldn't have gotten loans for in the first place. > > > > > It's asinine." - DJ > > > > > > What is even more 'asinine' and is not being talked about at ALL in > > > > > any media is that those of us who don't even own a house, whether we > > > > > could afford one or not ...and rent or...whatever, live on the street, > > > > > at parent's home etc. are among those who are PAYING the banks to help > > > > > keep people in homes! It's not even asinine, it is criminal! > > > > > > On Feb 26, 2:42 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Government is the problem because they manage the tax code. It's so > > > > > > confusing the guy hired to be in charge of it can't figure out how > > > > > > to > > > > > > pay his taxes. Let's make it easy. How about a flat tax on all > > > > > > income and consumption? Without the loopholes that are so abundant > > > > > > for the extremely wealthy to avoid taxes. I love the idea. Of > > > > > > course, this would eliminate Congress's major power of > > > > > > reward/punishment ability so it will never happen. The > > > > > > bribes...oops, > > > > > > I mean campaign donations... would dry up. > > > > > > > dj > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:45 PM, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, it is fran. Today many who pay a lot in taxes, not percentage > > > > > > > wise, but in amount based on a large income don't mind at all. > > > > > > > Only a > > > > > > > select vocal few are heard in the media to the point that such > > > > > > > propaganda about the government being the problem (Ronnie)....has > > > > > > > become a common myth. I've said it many times...when I was a kid, > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > father paid 91% of his income in taxes...and, we did VERY > > > > > > > well....no > > > > > > > complaints. Today, in most cases, the poor pay a higher > > > > > > > percentage of > > > > > > > their income in taxes than the rich. Robin Hood aside, this is > > > > > > > absurd > > > > > > > no matter the argument. > > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 9:28 am, frantheman <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> Don's - of course - purely rhetorical suggestion about the > > > > > > >> non-payment > > > > > > >> of taxes seems to echo a certain US American mythology that > > > > > > >> there's > > > > > > >> something un-american about paying taxes, as well as there being > > > > > > >> something inherently suspect about (central) government. > > > > > > > >> Nobody likes paying taxes and very few would even consider > > > > > > >> paying more > > > > > > >> than they absolutely have to - including me. But I must also > > > > > > >> acknowledge that taxation is the basic method for paying for > > > > > > >> things > > > > > > >> which a country/community/society feels need to be organised > > > > > > >> collectively. It belongs to the basic ideas of self-definition > > > > > > >> of a > > > > > > >> country/community/society to decide what these collective tasks > > > > > > >> are > > > > > > >> and how far they should be funded by the common purse. > > > > > > > >> Even as a non-US American, I seem to remember that the rallying > > > > > > >> cry > > > > > > >> for the American Revolution was not, "No taxation," but rather > > > > > > >> "No > > > > > > >> taxation without representation." The USA established itself on > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > >> basis as a representative democracy. Everything else flows from > > > > > > >> that. > > > > > > >> To use the language of 18th Century political thinkers, that's > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> basic social contract and there's no way to opt out of it and > > > > > > >> back to > > > > > > >> the "state of nature." As far as I recall, the US fought a rather > > > > > > >> spectacular civil war about that very issue. Those who wanted the > > > > > > >> right to opt out lost. > > > > > > > >> None of this, of course, addresses problems of injustice within > > > > > > >> particular taxation systems. But, strictly seen, that's what has > > > > > > >> to be > > > > > > >> sorted out within the representative democracy framework. Or, if > > > > > > >> your > > > > > > >> conscientious objections lead you to refuse, then you must > > > > > > >> accept the > > > > > > >> consequences. In my opinion, that's the kind of bravery Orn is > > > > > > >> talking > > > > > > >> about. > > > > > > > >> Francis > > > > > > > >> On 25 Feb., 16:50, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
