Why are white, uneducated voters voting for Trump?

evince said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html



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.
Click to expand...

this is the fourth time I posted this for you in this thread cowgirl
 
Cowgirl Up said:
Slavery was abolished through a constitutional amendment which was the right process and how things should be done if it's going to affect all of the states. What happens today though is executive orders, decrees, favors, and the ignoring of the constitutional process. For example universal healthcare should not be forced onto states unless it's through a constitutional amendment since enforcing healthcare from the federal government is not granted to the federal government through the current constitution.
Click to expand...
How does Medicare work?
 
Cowgirl Up said:
No I really don't. The system that was designed by our founders was that we followed the constitution and if something is not explicitly defined in the constitution then its deferred to the states through the 10th amendment. I like that system and I think they did too.
Click to expand...

post 112
 
evince said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html



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.
Click to expand...

post 111
 
Althea said:
LMAO!!!! Out of context? OUT OF CONTEXT? Congrats. You finally pushed me over the line.

Trump a wonk? Are you fucking crazy? He can't even pronounce the word. He reads at the 4th grade level. His 'we're gonna open the imaginary lines so ins. companies can sell over state lines' bullshit is a policy?

Research Trump? What's to research? He has NO policies. You're more interested in 'thematics'? Is that why you're so impressed with MAGA hats?


For the sake of our history...I'm hereby putting you on ignore until after the election.

Shame, really.
Click to expand...
sounds good. you've lost it. I even said he's not a wonk -but your inability to comprehend is blinded by your intense hate.
Nothing wrong with that -I despise Hillary,but I do try to be infornmed an coherent.

Yes it was out of context; thematics are the most important thing a POTUS can propose -it's leadership of the country at a macro level.
Congress does the micro legislating ( hopefully with consultations with POTUS -do you recall a legislative agenda?
It was pre-Obama).

MAGA Is a slogan. It's superior to a nebulous "Stronger together" of Clinton's -but both are slogans -neither impress,
but MAGA is a goal, and it's not going to get done by a vacilating Hillary on TPP, or by "leading in green".
That's all she's got. that and income re-distribution.

It takes good job creation and trade policy, none of which Clinton talks about

Catch you on the 9th. works for me. You've become shrill left.
 
Althea said:
I don't care what your education is. Keep parroting idiotic blather, and you join the group of idiots who you seem hell bent on proving the assertion.

I'm in NY, so the fact that you're a tad slower on the uptake is no surprise.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry your partisan sensibilities are so offended it the truth hurts doesn't it. Let me guess, you're upstate NY. I know you're not in Manhattan.
 
Althea said:
Both past tense. Now it has brought a select few wealth, and has put more into poverty.

Hell....that's the platform your party runs on....the impoverished 'coloreds' that suffer under our economic system.

Get back to me when profit motive is on par with societal motive. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Capitalism has brought hundreds of people around the globe out of poverty. Dear lord you are ignorant. No other economic system has come close.
 
Althea said:
Both past tense. Now it has brought a select few wealth, and has put more into poverty.

Hell....that's the platform your party runs on....the impoverished 'coloreds' that suffer under our economic system.

Get back to me when profit motive is on par with societal motive. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Capitalism has brought hundreds of millions of people around the globe out of poverty. Dear lord you are ignorant. No other economic system has come close.
 
Cowgirl Up said:
I'm sorry but those posts are about the Bush administration and things like that. That wasn't what any of my posts have been about. I'm just talking about the constitutional process and the states.
Click to expand...

You know you can't have an actual conversation with Desh.
 
Cowgirl Up said:
I'm sorry but those posts are about the Bush administration and things like that. That wasn't what any of my posts have been about. I'm just talking about the constitutional process and the states.
Click to expand...

its your party being evil and proving the states rights stuffis a lie
 
Cowgirl Up said:
I don't really take offense to the slogan but I do think it could be different. I think all its trying to do is appeal to that classic American dream ideal that at times seems unrealistic for a lot of people. I think he could have said something like Make America Greater or something like that though. This country is amazing and great but I know even I feel like it's needing a bit of a reset sort of. I just wish that it wouldn't have been Trump to help with that. The best way to make America great again in my mind is less government, more personal freedom, and a refocus on what God has blessed us with, but that's not really his platform unfortunately.
Click to expand...

post 91
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top