Discussion in 'Current Events' started by US Conservative, Jun 10, 2019.
Lol, trump has not had a years average GDP over 3% either.
The CRA (the federal Community Reinvestment Act) forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?
And who passed the federal Community Reinvestment Act? a democrat congress then signed by a democrat president
comparing two years to eight
Comparing an administration dealing with the worst recession in 80 years, to one that was handed a booming economy.
That's just fact and nobody denies it anymore except liars and people who are grossly uninformed.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.
Why I not surprised you chose the CRA?
Nothing in your Forbes/Ayn Rand Institute article is true.
First of all, the CRA does not force banks to make financially unsound loans. CRA loans are made to QUALIFIED minority borrowers and required a downpayment, only racists assume no minorities are ever qualified for a loan.
Secondly, CRA subprime loans are completely different from the Bush ADDI subprime loans in that Bush's ADDI subprime loans were no downpayment loans to unqualified borrowers with bad credit for more than the home was worth. Bush's ADDI subprime loans had ARM rates that adjusted UP making them high PROFIT high risk loans, the kind that actually caused the Great Bush Recession, whereas the ARM rates for CRA adjusted DOWN to prime if the borrower paid their mortgage on time for 2 years, making them lower profit loans unsuitable for the high risk high profit mortgage-backed securities (MBS) the lenders were pushing and that gave us the Great Bush Recession.
But you knew that already!
Well, the extreme economic disparity between the ultra-wealthy & the average American, with all new wealth going to the top 1.5% can't continue. It's destabilizing. I think blending some social programs in with American Capitalism would help. You seem to be saying keep the status quo. But I don't think the average American will tolerate that for much longer. You have suggestions?
ROFL I wish that were true. I am in sales and I have LOTS of competition and new ones all the time. Without that competition prices would soar and quality and service would decline, those who cannot provide a better product with higher value and have the service to back it up than their competition should fail, it's what customers look for and are willing to pay for. Why should they be winners?
It has been explained to you and you still don't get it and it was only twice during the Obama administration.
Please get beyond the Cold War. There are very few "communist" states left anymore, and the ones that do still exist have a short life expectancy. Socialism is NOT the same as, or even closely resembling communism. They are completely different economic systems. I'm as anti-communist as you or any other American. But I support adding more socialist programs into our current capitalist system to help resuscitate the dwindling middle class. Keep in mind, Democratic Socialists honor, maintain & practice human rights & freedoms equal to or surpassing those guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. So do I.
You keep pretending to play dumb, as I PROVED to you with your OWN citation, your claim of only twice was NOT an ANNUAL GDP growth rate. It compared 1 quarter to the SAME quarter one year earlier.
I support the idea of having a capitalist-socialist hybrid economy. I think that's the best way to go. Our "socialized education" system was a success until conservative politicians began finding ever more ways to undermine the financial support for it, so it gradually succumbed to wretched inadequacy. Most European countries have "socialized education" systems that are so successful that their 18 year old graduates are comparable in knowledge to our best junior college level grads here. Plus, European education systems also train students for blue collar professions. The problem isn't in the term "socialized." The problem is in funding & a national commitment to education. Both have been lacking from American public officials for a very long time.
Interesting, yet the US spends more per student than any other nation in the world (less Luxenberg).
Everyone needs to feel like a winner at times. Otherwise, they become despondent, depressed &/or angry. Angry people don't make positive neighbors or voters, & can become a real problem. It's always a good idea for leaders to keep their citizens happy campers. That way everybody wins. Your attitude reflects the philosophy that has brought us to the state we're in today, with <2% of our wealthiest families, owning & controlling >98% of our national wealth & all of our politics--which I and many like me, find increasingly intolerable. In any society, the majority eventually take over. How they do that, & what they do afterward, depends largely on how the controlling minority treats them before takeover happens.
Yes, & the U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other nation by multiples. Yet, our schools & our medical system are both poor examples of what's possible. European countries spend far less on both, yet have much better results. Why?
That extreme economic disparity only gets worse in socialist places.
Here in the US, California is a prime example.
If you want to make the economy even better, cut taxes, cut red tape, and get the EFFF out of the way.
China is a prime example. Commies at their core.
Democrat Feinstein had a chinese commie spy working in her office for years.
Following your suggestions is basically what got us into the situation we're now in. W European Democratic Socialist states have far less wealth disparity than we now do. Workers take part in business decision making, & get a portion of the company profits, by agreement. Some companies are actually owned by the workers themselves. All workers get a mandatory 6 week paid vacation, plus maternity leave, & healthcare for all. So, I totally disagree with your overly rosy view of America as it is now, & I DON'T want to keep it as is.
I'm not referring to communist China, Venezuela or Cuba. Yes, they are all failures in the area of human rights & freedoms. But they are COMMUNIST, not Democratic Socialist countries. I like Democratic Socialist countries, & would like to see the U.S. become more like those.
No its not. The handful of small nations you cite as a model can't work in the US.
You have been sold a fairly tale over the last few decades.
Sorry, they are commies, being commies.
No, they're not. Democratic Socialist countries work along with capitalism on a friendly & cooperative basis. Communists don't. They're NOT the same, & continuing to claim they are is dishonest.
Separate names with a comma.