I get most of my news from John "stubeef" Stewart so I don't know how acurate my information is, but I remember a few clips where people in townhalls could not get a word out due to some idiots shouting them down... not as much as the idiots in the above clip but still.
<!--quoteo(post=1879322:date=Oct 11 2011, 04:34 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spooge @ Oct 11 2011, 04:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1879322"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But still what? Did they crowd around the speaker and shout derogatory chants until the speaker left the building?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kinda. They didn't let them speak. It's similiar in result, just different in method.
<!--quoteo(post=1878987:date=Oct 9 2011, 04:30 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Oct 9 2011, 04:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878987"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1878817:date=Oct 8 2011, 07:31 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Oct 8 2011, 07:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878817"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If we wanna play the blame game, I blame Clinton for enacting the enforced housing loans-for-poorer-people initiatives that created the bubble in the first place.
But, wait, that's a fool's errand. 'Case eventually we'll just blame a cell for dividing.
Let's focus on fixing ###### today shall we?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stop persisting this myth. Private loans not regulated by the CRA(the "loans for poorer people program") made up most of the subprime loans and the lions share of high risk loans. {<a href="http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/addendum_to_traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-14-08.pdf#page=2a" target="_blank">link</a> - <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->PDF Warning<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->}
<strike>Also I don't have a reference for it now, but</strike> bank loans regulated by the CRA defaulted in <strike>the same</strike> lower percentages compared to non CRA regulated loans.{<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020396" target="_blank">link</a> - PDF download} <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, took me a while to get back on this.
First of all, good job on you for bringing in real studies and not just anecdotes. You get mundo points for that alone in my book.
Anyways, to the reports!
First of all, the first report shows that the CRA loans did not make up all or even half of the defaults that occurred. However, I would like to remark they still make up a sizeable chunk.
As to the second report, they do have an explicit section 5.3 where they note CRA-enforced loans had a higher default rate by their model. Granted, the conclusion notes that the primary drivers were the private-labeled mortage-backed securities running around and taken up into the market by investors (i.e. unsafe unregulated debt). This weakened the "quality" of the market, notably crushing the interest rate difference between subprime and regular loans. This in turn increased default rates across the board, but sizably hurt people with high LVT (loan-to-value) situations.
So, in closing, yay real reports, and yes Clinton isn't solely responsible for expanding the CRA in 1999. But that was kinda my point.
<!--quoteo(post=1878997:date=Oct 9 2011, 05:14 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Oct 9 2011, 05:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878997"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1.) You do realize that list Spooge posted earlier was satirical and written by a conservative columnist, right? There have been no actual 'lists' released yet; the movement is just expressing anger at the status quo so far. 2.)A lot of the 99% are also middle aged and elderly homeowners that have lost a lot due to the crash. The protests at Wall St are mostly young because that is the general make up of protesters. Older people have too many responsibilities to be able to go protest like this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) Of course. A more realistic list can be found at: <a href="http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009" target="_blank">link</a> (that list also has some silly notions like remove the SEC, but what ya gonna do), but this being a leaderless movement there are no official reports. Which is kinda why it's awesome and also why the media is going bat###### crazy trying to pull a narrative out of thin air.
2) Yes, I can access the Tumblr feed as well. =p
Basically, the short of it all: PEOPLE BE ANGRY (and for good reason) WE HAVE NO CLUE HOW TO ACTUALLY FIX IT ALL
<a href="http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2011/10/11/centrism-will-not-do/" target="_blank">link</a> talking about the fundamental difference of OWS and the Tea Party and why they will never work together.
Damn
And here I was hoping for the revolution where the working people threw off the shackles of stupid peoples. Instead I get two polar angry mobs.
<!--quoteo(post=1879305:date=Oct 11 2011, 01:45 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spooge @ Oct 11 2011, 01:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1879305"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd love to see any link to support this but I won't be holding my breath.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, because all the ones saying "If ballots don't work, bullets will", and "I didn't bring my gun... this time" were just talking about bringing SuperSoakers to DC and embarassing congressmen.
I may not have your amazing right-wing perspective on things, but I can't really see how there's any other way to interpret that besides "If I don't get political support for my minority extremist views, I will start killing electorates."
If you care to provide a Glenn Beck-approved spin on that one, by all means.
Oh! Maybe they're just expressing support for <strike>Southern Succession</strike>, I mean, the "War of Northern Aggression". That's how you guys spin that one, right? And be sure to deny it had anything to do with slavery even though it had everything to do with slavery.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for making it to seven pages whilst painstakingly straddling that fine line between civility and chaos. Here's to another seven pages! Just remember not to take politics too seriously... it's bad for your arteries.
<!--quoteo(post=1879391:date=Oct 11 2011, 12:26 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Oct 11 2011, 12:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1879391"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh! Maybe they're just expressing support for <strike>Southern Succession</strike>, I mean, the "War of Northern Aggression". That's how you guys spin that one, right? And be sure to deny it had anything to do with slavery even though it had everything to do with slavery.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
>.<
This thread is starting to border on devolving into silly personal attacks.
And for the record, the American Civil War had lots of components leading up to it. Slavery, Sectionalism of economies, and States' Rights being some of the principle ones. Slavery was a major component, especially with Lincoln campaigning on preventing its spread, and it strongly shaped the discussion, but it hardly was the sole reason.
And what exactly was it that Southern states wanted to decide for themselves, hmm? What exactly was the economic strength of the South built upon? Every aspect of it scomes back to slavery. Don't ask me - just about all of Lincoln's correspondences identified that the issue hinged almost entirely on slavery. Pretty sure the guy in charge when the entire thing happened knew a lot more about the political climate at the time than we could identify after over a century and a half of people muddling the waters, trying to pretend they weren't just a bunch of racist hicks.
<!--quoteo(post=1879412:date=Oct 11 2011, 04:49 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Oct 11 2011, 04:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1879412"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And what exactly was it that Southern states wanted to decide for themselves, hmm? What exactly was the economic strength of the South built upon? Every aspect of it scomes back to slavery. Don't ask me - just about all of Lincoln's correspondences identified that the issue hinged almost entirely on slavery. Pretty sure the guy in charge when the entire thing happened knew a lot more about the political climate at the time than we could identify after over a century and a half of people muddling the waters, trying to pretend they weren't just a bunch of racist hicks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe that what the so called Southern Gentlemen were most angry about was the northern industrial owners' operating from a moral high ground because they hired immigrants for next to nothing and worked them till they died, then hired more instead of owning slaves. This was supposedly better because the immigrants had a "choice" in the matter, where the slaves did not. Of course, the immigrants had no unions. :P
Racism was also not confined to merely the "hicks," either. Nor was it confined to blacks.
<!--quoteo(post=1879391:date=Oct 11 2011, 12:26 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Oct 11 2011, 12:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1879391"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Right, because all the ones saying "If ballots don't work, bullets will", and "I didn't bring my gun... this time" were just talking about bringing SuperSoakers to DC and embarassing congressmen.
I may not have your amazing right-wing perspective on things, but I can't really see how there's any other way to interpret that besides "If I don't get political support for my minority extremist views, I will start killing electorates."
If you care to provide a Glenn Beck-approved spin on that one, by all means.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if we're now cherry-picking signs and extremists from groups, here's Occupy LA: <center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qlPY9AfQFqI"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qlPY9AfQFqI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
In other news, one of my friends is helping organize one of the major Occupy protests. I get a day-to-day update on all the things going on. And this guy is obviously an extremist of the movement who doesn't represent the Occupy movement.
The point that he's one of many speakers and does not represent the ideals of the group would mean more to me if the crowd didn't agree with him and egg him on...
My all time favorite of the Bush era <center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lHSiqQpg7Uc"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lHSiqQpg7Uc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
<!--quoteo(post=1879665:date=Oct 13 2011, 10:21 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Oct 13 2011, 10:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1879665"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When is Obama going to release his birth certificate?!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Trump was close to obtaining the real certificate through his independent investigation, but suddenly Osama was killed. And the birth certificate was forever forgotten. It wont be brought up again.
And occupy Wall Street has been a peaceful protest..but white collared pigs are trying to change that.. fkn shame.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
Wow, there sure are strong reactions. This has gotten more interesting than I thought it would. <a href="http://i.imgur.com/yarZ7.jpg" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/yarZ7.jpg</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1879997:date=Oct 15 2011, 05:37 AM:name=Tykjen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tykjen @ Oct 15 2011, 05:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1879997"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And occupy Wall Street has been a peaceful protest..but white collared pigs are trying to change that.. fkn shame.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That does look pretty ######. But I do have to wonder what she was doing before the officer decided to smack her.
@locallyunscene: mmm cherry picking. Hell, guy who made that could have been the one to make it originally.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1880043:date=Oct 15 2011, 01:04 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Oct 15 2011, 01:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880043"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That does look pretty ######. But I do have to wonder what she was doing before the officer decided to smack her.
@locallyunscene: mmm cherry picking. Hell, guy who made that could have been the one to make it originally.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was wondering the same, but nope; the site is more a less a sham. I'm sure there are some real people on there, but that's the cherry picking.
<!--quoteo(post=1880046:date=Oct 15 2011, 11:12 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Oct 15 2011, 11:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880046"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was wondering the same, but nope; the site is more a less a sham. I'm sure there are some real people on there, but that's the cherry picking.
And now for something weird: <a href="http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/15/occupy-wall-street-protesters-reportedly-arrested-for-closing-their-accounts-call-the-ceo/" target="_blank">Getting arrested for closing bank accounts (and potentially a sit-in?)</a>
Comments
Kinda. They didn't let them speak. It's similiar in result, just different in method.
If we wanna play the blame game, I blame Clinton for enacting the enforced housing loans-for-poorer-people initiatives that created the bubble in the first place.
But, wait, that's a fool's errand. 'Case eventually we'll just blame a cell for dividing.
Let's focus on fixing ###### today shall we?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stop persisting this myth. Private loans not regulated by the CRA(the "loans for poorer people program") made up most of the subprime loans and the lions share of high risk loans. {<a href="http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/addendum_to_traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-14-08.pdf#page=2a" target="_blank">link</a> - <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->PDF Warning<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->}
<strike>Also I don't have a reference for it now, but</strike> bank loans regulated by the CRA defaulted in <strike>the same</strike> lower percentages compared to non CRA regulated loans.{<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020396" target="_blank">link</a> - PDF download}
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, took me a while to get back on this.
First of all, good job on you for bringing in real studies and not just anecdotes. You get mundo points for that alone in my book.
Anyways, to the reports!
First of all, the first report shows that the CRA loans did not make up all or even half of the defaults that occurred. However, I would like to remark they still make up a sizeable chunk.
As to the second report, they do have an explicit section 5.3 where they note CRA-enforced loans had a higher default rate by their model. Granted, the conclusion notes that the primary drivers were the private-labeled mortage-backed securities running around and taken up into the market by investors (i.e. unsafe unregulated debt). This weakened the "quality" of the market, notably crushing the interest rate difference between subprime and regular loans. This in turn increased default rates across the board, but sizably hurt people with high LVT (loan-to-value) situations.
So, in closing, yay real reports, and yes Clinton isn't solely responsible for expanding the CRA in 1999. But that was kinda my point.
2.)A lot of the 99% are also middle aged and elderly homeowners that have lost a lot due to the crash. The protests at Wall St are mostly young because that is the general make up of protesters. Older people have too many responsibilities to be able to go protest like this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) Of course. A more realistic list can be found at: <a href="http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009" target="_blank">link</a> (that list also has some silly notions like remove the SEC, but what ya gonna do), but this being a leaderless movement there are no official reports. Which is kinda why it's awesome and also why the media is going bat###### crazy trying to pull a narrative out of thin air.
2) Yes, I can access the Tumblr feed as well. =p
Basically, the short of it all:
PEOPLE BE ANGRY (and for good reason)
WE HAVE NO CLUE HOW TO ACTUALLY FIX IT ALL
Damn
And here I was hoping for the revolution where the working people threw off the shackles of stupid peoples. Instead I get two polar angry mobs.
Right, because all the ones saying "If ballots don't work, bullets will", and "I didn't bring my gun... this time" were just talking about bringing SuperSoakers to DC and embarassing congressmen.
I may not have your amazing right-wing perspective on things, but I can't really see how there's any other way to interpret that besides "If I don't get political support for my minority extremist views, I will start killing electorates."
If you care to provide a Glenn Beck-approved spin on that one, by all means.
Oh! Maybe they're just expressing support for <strike>Southern Succession</strike>, I mean, the "War of Northern Aggression". That's how you guys spin that one, right? And be sure to deny it had anything to do with slavery even though it had everything to do with slavery.
>.<
This thread is starting to border on devolving into silly personal attacks.
And for the record, the American Civil War had lots of components leading up to it. Slavery, Sectionalism of economies, and States' Rights being some of the principle ones. Slavery was a major component, especially with Lincoln campaigning on preventing its spread, and it strongly shaped the discussion, but it hardly was the sole reason.
And what exactly was it that Southern states wanted to decide for themselves, hmm? What exactly was the economic strength of the South built upon? Every aspect of it scomes back to slavery. Don't ask me - just about all of Lincoln's correspondences identified that the issue hinged almost entirely on slavery. Pretty sure the guy in charge when the entire thing happened knew a lot more about the political climate at the time than we could identify after over a century and a half of people muddling the waters, trying to pretend they weren't just a bunch of racist hicks.
I believe that what the so called Southern Gentlemen were most angry about was the northern industrial owners' operating from a moral high ground because they hired immigrants for next to nothing and worked them till they died, then hired more instead of owning slaves. This was supposedly better because the immigrants had a "choice" in the matter, where the slaves did not. Of course, the immigrants had no unions. :P
Racism was also not confined to merely the "hicks," either. Nor was it confined to blacks.
I may not have your amazing right-wing perspective on things, but I can't really see how there's any other way to interpret that besides "If I don't get political support for my minority extremist views, I will start killing electorates."
If you care to provide a Glenn Beck-approved spin on that one, by all means.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if we're now cherry-picking signs and extremists from groups, here's Occupy LA:
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qlPY9AfQFqI"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qlPY9AfQFqI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
In other news, one of my friends is helping organize one of the major Occupy protests. I get a day-to-day update on all the things going on. And this guy is obviously an extremist of the movement who doesn't represent the Occupy movement.
Maybe something closer to this:
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GYfmShJe5MA"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GYfmShJe5MA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
*edit Or maybe if the crowd boo and hassled <i>him</i> until he left, as they did Fox News.
Quite so, good sir!
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lHSiqQpg7Uc"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lHSiqQpg7Uc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
Trump was close to obtaining the real certificate through his independent investigation, but suddenly Osama was killed.
And the birth certificate was forever forgotten. It wont be brought up again.
And occupy Wall Street has been a peaceful protest..but white collared pigs are trying to change that.. fkn shame.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vxZ8_JdKm0Q"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vxZ8_JdKm0Q" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/yarZ7.jpg" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/yarZ7.jpg</a>
That does look pretty ######. But I do have to wonder what she was doing before the officer decided to smack her.
@locallyunscene: mmm cherry picking. Hell, guy who made that could have been the one to make it originally.
@locallyunscene: mmm cherry picking. Hell, guy who made that could have been the one to make it originally.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was wondering the same, but nope; the site is more a less a sham. I'm sure there are some real people on there, but that's the cherry picking.
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/10/11/304642/erickson-whines-53-percent/" target="_blank">http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/10/1...nes-53-percent/</a>
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/10/11/304642/erickson-whines-53-percent/" target="_blank">http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/10/1...nes-53-percent/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, as much as I'd like to agree, I'm still waiting on some stats of fakes versus reals. Picking out the original poster is also cherry-picking.