evince
Truthmatters
why do you hate democracy?
Emory Univ. Goes Ballistic after "TRUMP 2016" Written on Sidewalks !!!
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
why do you hate democracy?
If you want to have a sincere conversation about this then i'll wait for a genuine response, but until then you should know by now that I am not someone that is going to debate like this. Have a good rest of the morning.
evince
Truthmatters
representatives
why do you PRETEND our government was not set up to represent the people?
evince
Truthmatters
you pretend my side is trying to do direct democracy that is a lie
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
she isn't......she's just repeating what HE says he stands for.....
evince
Truthmatters
what were the founders ideas on this one
partisan lies from your party are stuck in your brain
clean your brain
1. I'm not sure which states you are talking about so if you could list them then I would appreciate that, and also which bank issue you are talking about.
2. I'm not asking for completely unfettered markets since there would still be state regulation. The problem with government owned anything is that it is often times never funded correctly or well, it's inefficient, and it's not constitutional in many respects.
3. Which founders? Some of the founders have different points of view. Bernie Sanders would not have been aligned with founders such as Jefferson or Madison for example, and when it comes to the post office in most cases UPS and Fedex work much better which in my opinion justifies their function as a private company over government sponsored and maintained mail and would reduce the cost of funding through taxes if the post office were eliminated.
Also for me personally I would side with the US constitution and the states before I would side with the republican party or a strong central government led by whichever party has that power.
evince
Truthmatters
post 98
Ok well I was 11 years old in 2008 and so I really have no connection or responsibility towards this. If I did have responsibility I would have said to end any abuse, stop any predatory lending, and enforce state laws or create new state laws guarding against banks doing bad things.
evince
Truthmatters
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
evince
Truthmatters
you need to know these things before you claim to know what you want for all other Americans to do because YOU are so smart.
I was a child during vietnam and get blamed for it all the time by right wing liars
evince
Truthmatters
"2. I'm not asking for completely unfettered markets since there would still be state regulation. The problem with government owned anything is that it is often times never funded correctly or well, it's inefficient, and it's not constitutional in many respects."
why is it not funded fully?
because your party hates it when government has power
they prefer the ceos run things in this country
take the example of how the republican party fought the states instead of backing their choices.
the republican party LIES
theynPRETEND to back the states so they can tear them a new one in the background and you never known because places like FOX never tell you that news
why is it not funded fully?
because your party hates it when government has power
they prefer the ceos run things in this country
take the example of how the republican party fought the states instead of backing their choices.
the republican party LIES
theynPRETEND to back the states so they can tear them a new one in the background and you never known because places like FOX never tell you that news
evince
Truthmatters
"3. Which founders? Some of the founders have different points of view. Bernie Sanders would not have been aligned with founders such as Jefferson or Madison for example, and when it comes to the post office in most cases UPS and Fedex work much better which in my opinion justifies their function as a private company over government sponsored and maintained mail and would reduce the cost of funding through taxes if the post office were eliminated"
you don't even know that the Post office is In the constitution?
you don't even know that the Post office is In the constitution?
Then I am not any less or more to blame for what happened in 2008 than you are Vietnam, right? It doesn't matter as long as your principles, morals, and values are strong enough so that you don't commit crimes or defraud others. If I worked at a bank and someone wanted a loan I wouldn't approve it if they didn't qualify just so I or that company can make extra cash. I'm not greedy and I have my core principles. From what i've read and heard about that bank stuff what happened to alot of people was wrong and shouldn't have happened. There are probably a lot or republicans and democrats to blame for it as well as many non affiliated people in the business world and banking system. To me, wrong is wrong, my party affiliation doesn't decide that for me.
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".[1]
The Postal Clause was added to the Constitution to facilitate interstate communication as well as to create a source of revenue for the early United States.[2][3] There were some early disagreements as to the boundaries of the Postal Power. John Jay, in a letter to George Washington, opined that the postal service should not be burdened with the responsibility for handling newspaper delivery, and also suggested that the Post Office be placed under the supervision of the executive branch (a suggestion which later led to the creation of the Post Office Department).[4] Thomas Jefferson feared that the postal service would become a source of patronage and a waste of money. Jefferson also expressed doubt at granting Congress the power to designate post roads, as he considered road building to be a state responsibility.[5]
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".[1]
The Postal Clause was added to the Constitution to facilitate interstate communication as well as to create a source of revenue for the early United States.[2][3] There were some early disagreements as to the boundaries of the Postal Power. John Jay, in a letter to George Washington, opined that the postal service should not be burdened with the responsibility for handling newspaper delivery, and also suggested that the Post Office be placed under the supervision of the executive branch (a suggestion which later led to the creation of the Post Office Department).[4] Thomas Jefferson feared that the postal service would become a source of patronage and a waste of money. Jefferson also expressed doubt at granting Congress the power to designate post roads, as he considered road building to be a state responsibility.[5]
CEO's and business owners should be running companies, not the government. Government taking over and running a company like John Deere for example would be unconstitutional and not what a republic would be doing. Are you saying that CEO's and business owners should not be running a company?
I'm simply saying that the post office does not make profit, uses tax dollars to fund it, and is less efficient and reliable than private businesses. I'd be fine with it going away.