Why isn't the MSM having this as a top story??
- Thread starter USFREEDOM911
- Start date
Darth Omar
Russian asset
It doesn't fit the narrative?
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2...l-shooting-sheriffs-office-interview-hundreds
gee the reason my be that it happened in 2013 you fucking lying zip lock bag of weasel bile
gee the reason my be that it happened in 2013 you fucking lying zip lock bag of weasel bile
Callinectes
Proud MAGA Semi-Facist
Oh, so YOU knew about it in 2013, but failed to mention it here? Why? That is called a lie of omission, desh. Why are you a lying, racist sociopath? So who is the REAL lying zip lock bag of weasel bile now?
Of course it is a lie you disingenuous fool.
Just posting it in current events alone is dishonest.
2013 is not current.
What a POS hack you are.
Heh. MSM isn't interested unless there are riots or a lot of bloodshed.
ANd only if its a white 'RW terrorists.' You saw how disappointed they were to learn the San Bernardino shooters were Muslim terrorists.
ALso libs hate resource officers and try to get them fired for doing their jobs. Libs hate LE in general and want anarcho-marxism.
ANd only if its a white 'RW terrorists.' You saw how disappointed they were to learn the San Bernardino shooters were Muslim terrorists.
ALso libs hate resource officers and try to get them fired for doing their jobs. Libs hate LE in general and want anarcho-marxism.
It wasn't reported then either. :lol:
Deranged moron; google arapaho shooting.
Every single mainstream media comes up with a story.
The OP is TOTAL BULLSHIT.
Some of the overt lies?
1. There was a student fatalility.
2. The deputy DID NOT kill the shooter, the shooter killed himself.
Total lie.
How does it feel to have only lies?
Get the fuck off this board moron.
Adults are trying to have a conversation.
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...te-level-preditory-lending-rules-were-blocked
the right just lies
they refuse to deal with FACTS and spew fucking lies
series: facts republicans ignore, state level preditory lending rules were blocked
http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...level-pre.html
Thursday, February 14, 2008
State Level Predatory Lending Rules Were Blocked
Eliot Spitzer says some states tried to pass rules to limit predatory lending, but the Bush administration blocked the efforts:
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers, by Eliot Spitzer, Commentary, Washington Post: 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. ... These ... 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. ...
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? ... 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...
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..., 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 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... 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.
the right just lies
they refuse to deal with FACTS and spew fucking lies
series: facts republicans ignore, state level preditory lending rules were blocked
http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...level-pre.html
Thursday, February 14, 2008
State Level Predatory Lending Rules Were Blocked
Eliot Spitzer says some states tried to pass rules to limit predatory lending, but the Bush administration blocked the efforts:
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers, by Eliot Spitzer, Commentary, Washington Post: 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. ... These ... 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. ...
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? ... 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...
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..., 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 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... 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.
The True Origins of This Financial Crisis
As opposed to a desperate liberal legend.
http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis
......As originally enacted in 1977, the CRA vaguely mandated regulators to consider whether an insured bank was serving the needs of the “whole” community. For 16 years, the act was invoked rather infrequently, but 1993 marked a decisive turn in its enforcement. What changed? Substantial media and political attention was showered upon a 1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank study of discrimination in home mortgage lending. This study concluded that, while there was no overt discrimination in banks’ allocation of mortgage funds, loan officers gave whites preferential treatment. The methodology of the study has since been questioned, but at the time it was highly influential with regulators and members of the incoming Clinton administration; in 1993, bank regulators initiated a major effort to reform the CRA regulations.
In 1995, the regulators created new rules that sought to establish objective criteria for determining whether a bank was meeting CRA standards. Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified buyers wasn’t enough. Banks now had to show that they had actually made a requisite number of loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers. The new regulations also required the use of “innovative or flexible” lending practices to address credit needs of LMI borrowers and neighborhoods. Thus, a law that was originally intended to encourage banks to use safe and sound practices in lending now required them to be “innovative” and “flexible.” In other words, it called for the relaxation of lending standards, and it was the bank regulators who were expected to enforce these relaxed standards.
There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the Times edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of the Clinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent.
===
Desh makes a good point....
A new research report out of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill looks at the impact of federal preemption of state Anti-Predatory Lending laws. The key factor was the decision by the Bush White House in 2004 to preempt state lending standards......
This certainly made things worse .....
Last edited: