Liz Warren

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : JUST STOP FREAKIN LYING IT"S NOT PUBLIC POLICY!!!! There was no public policy that affected the mortgage companies or influenced them to change their criteria. It was a business decision made internally. 90% of all subprime loans were written by mortgage companies not subject to the CRA or any other mortgage programs. Mortgage companies were solely responsible for who they accepted for a loan. There were no 'public policy' initiatives that held any influence in their decisions. Geepers, your ignorance and obfuscation is astounding.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    Some disagree:


    Government and Federal Regulatory Policies 

    Some economists have suggested that government policy encouraged the development of the subprime meltdown through legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act, which they claim forces banks to lend to uncreditworthy consumers. Economist Robert Kuttner criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the mortgage crisis. Others have noted that a taxpayer-funded government bailout related to mortgages during the Savings and Loan crisis may have created the above-mentioned moral hazard and acted as encouragement to lenders to make similar higher-risk loans.

    Changes in the reserve requirements of U.S. banks and the creation in 1994 of special “sweep” accounts that link commercial checking and investment accounts allowed banks greater liquidity. This meant that they could offer more credit. From 2001 to 2002, in the 
    wake of the dot-com crash, the Federal Reserve Funds Rate was reduced from 6 percent to 1.24 percent, leading to similar cuts in the London Interbank Offered Rate that banks use to set some ARM rates. Drastically lowered ARM rates meant that in the United States the monthly cost of a mortgage on a $500,000 home fell to about the monthly cost of a mortgage on a $250,000 home purchased two years earlier. Demand skyrocketed and the housing bubble was born. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    The Community Reinvestment Act was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That  provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).

    ACORN abused the law by forcing banks to make subprime' loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

    In the 1990's under the administration of Franklin Raines, a Clinton Administration appointee, Fannie Mae began to demand that the lending institutions that it dealt with prove that they were not redlining. This meant that the lending institutions would have to fulfill a quota of minority mortgage lending. This in turn meant that the lending agencies would have to lower their standards in terms of such things as down payments and the required incomes. These subprime borrowers would be charged a higher interest rate. Having put the lending agencies into the position of granting subprime mortgages Fannie Mae then had to accept lower standards in the mortgages it purchased. That set the ball rolling.
    Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a market for subprime mortgages the lenders did not have to worry about of the soundness of the mortgage contract they wrote. Thus the lenders could write the mortgages as adjustable interest rate mortgages knowing full well that an upturn in the interest rates could easily throw the borrower into insolvency. The guilt for the subprime mortgage financial crisis lies both with the lenders who knowingly put borrowers into trapped mortgages and the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for making a market for such mortgages thus giving the lenders the incentive for writing them.

    .

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : You mean, the one he has yet to brandish?
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    Sen. Brown has broken away from Republicans on the jobs bill, Paul Ryan's medicare overhaul, DADT repeal, funding for planned parenthood, etc.

    Do you really think Warren would break from Democrats....ever? 
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]One thing Warren will have to learn is that if she's going to sling it, she damn well better learn how to take it. Make cracks about him posing and then cry "sexism" and "rude" when he simply replies in like kind? _____________________________________________________________ Republican Senator Scott Brown made a crack about Democrat Elizabeth Warren’s physical appearance on a radio show this morning. Brown was responding to a crack Warren made in Tuesday’s debate, when the Democrat said that she “didn’t take her clothes off” to pay for college, a reference to Brown’s famous nude spread in Cosmopolitan magazine decades ago. Asked by the WZLX disc jockey for a response, Brown said “Thank God,” which elicited laughter. During the interview, Brown also explained more about why he posed nude. “You know what, listen: Bottom line is, you know, I didn’t go to Harvard, you know, I went to the school of hard knocks, and I did whatever I had to do to pay for school,’’ He said. “And for people who know me, and know what I’ve been through… [My] mom and dad married and divorced four times each. You know, some real challenges growing up,’’ he said. Brown continued, saying “You know, whatever. You know, let them throw stones. I did what I had to do. But not for having that opportunity, I never would have been able to pay for school, and never would have gone to school, and I wouldn’t probably be talking to you, so, whatever.’’ Democrats immediately pounced on Brown’s remarks. “Senator Brown saying ridiculously ignorant, rude, sexist, and false things? Weird, that never happens,” Julia Leja, the finance director for the Massachusetts Democratic Party, wrote on Twitter, adding an expletive for emphasis.   http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/10/scott-brown-takes-poke-elizabeth-warren-appearance-boston-radio-show/s745o8D3uv5kJ3Uvfk98qI/index.html?p1=News_links  
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    This gets to the point of never asking a question you don't already know the answer to, and don't start something you don't want to finish.

    It was a cheap shot that the esteemed Prof Warren took, but the PC police condemn the frat house response.  As soon as I heard how Brown answered the question I knew he would be condemned.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]Sorry. We were busy planning how to use unions to get illegal immigrants to kill all conservatives and their grandmothers. But we DVR'd it!
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Well, your plan is succeeding. the kill count in Massachusetts in the past 30 days is three.  You jerk.
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Winston69. Show Winston69's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]Sorry. We were busy planning how to use unions to get illegal immigrants to kill all conservatives and their grandmothers. But we DVR'd it!
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Hey, how can you kill your grandmother if conservatives have either starved her to death or caused her to die when a bridge collapses?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : So some economists have 'suggested' lax regulation was part of the problem. If that's the case why are all you whacko wingnuts against regulating the industry. Ya'll are on these boards chanting 'too much regulation' and on the same boards saying that not enough regulation is what led to the financial collapse. Seriously, can someone explain how you can identify a problem that led to the largest financial failure since the Depression and then fight any attempts to fix the lax regulations that YOU say were responsible for the collapse.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    There is fixing the regulation vs. over regulation.  One is prudent the other is reactionary, dcounter productive and it introduces new problems.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : So some economists have 'suggested' lax regulation was part of the problem. If that's the case why are all you whacko wingnuts against regulating the industry. Ya'll are on these boards chanting 'too much regulation' and on the same boards saying that not enough regulation is what led to the financial collapse. Seriously, can someone explain how you can identify a problem that led to the largest financial failure since the Depression and then fight any attempts to fix the lax regulations that YOU say were responsible for the collapse.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    If you are talking about mortgages, etc. Let the banks decide who they want to loan money to and what type of risk they want to absorb.  Outside of discriminatory regulation, maybe a few regulatory tweaks here and there, what else is needed?

    Besides, the DEMOCRAT Frank was on a crusade to make loans easier to obtain, despite the normal tendency for banks to loan based on risk.  risk went out the window, the government back (nearly) everything.
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : No there is regulation vs nothing. Those are the choices put forth by the respective parties. Are you saying inaction is a better approach?
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    Really?  Do you REALLY believe that?

    I guess in your world, the 24,000 pages of existing regulations is NOTHING.

    you dope.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]One thing Warren will have to learn is that if she's going to sling it, she damn well better learn how to take it. Make cracks about him posing and then cry "sexism" and "rude" when he simply replies in like kind? _____________________________________________________________ Republican Senator Scott Brown made a crack about Democrat Elizabeth Warren’s physical appearance on a radio show this morning. Brown was responding to a crack Warren made in Tuesday’s debate, when the Democrat said that she “didn’t take her clothes off” to pay for college, a reference to Brown’s famous nude spread in Cosmopolitan magazine decades ago. Asked by the WZLX disc jockey for a response, Brown said “Thank God,” which elicited laughter. During the interview, Brown also explained more about why he posed nude. “You know what, listen: Bottom line is, you know, I didn’t go to Harvard, you know, I went to the school of hard knocks, and I did whatever I had to do to pay for school,’’ He said. “And for people who know me, and know what I’ve been through… [My] mom and dad married and divorced four times each. You know, some real challenges growing up,’’ he said. Brown continued, saying “You know, whatever. You know, let them throw stones. I did what I had to do. But not for having that opportunity, I never would have been able to pay for school, and never would have gone to school, and I wouldn’t probably be talking to you, so, whatever.’’ Democrats immediately pounced on Brown’s remarks. “Senator Brown saying ridiculously ignorant, rude, sexist, and false things? Weird, that never happens,” Julia Leja, the finance director for the Massachusetts Democratic Party, wrote on Twitter, adding an expletive for emphasis.   http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/10/scott-brown-takes-poke-elizabeth-warren-appearance-boston-radio-show/s745o8D3uv5kJ3Uvfk98qI/index.html?p1=News_links  
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Actually, from this exchange, it sounds like Scotty on the defensive and not just a bit petulant.  I didn't hear it, but the transcript reads like he was a bit stammered...maybe he was more loose on the air.  He is the incumbent; the office is his to lose.

    BTW...Ms. Warren's comments were not sexist, but Mr. Brown's were.  He also needs to explain why other college students having a tough time (numerous considering the exploding costs of college) should or shouldn't also do what he did.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : Hey moron, joe posited that not enough regulation led to the financial collapse. Again, comprehension and understanding the question, the keys to not looking like an idiot.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    I was commenting on your idea that there was no regulation, not Joe's comments.  Moron.
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    BTW...Ms. Warren's comments were not sexist, but Mr. Brown's were. 

    How so?


    He also needs to explain why other college students having a tough time (numerous considering the exploding costs of college) should or shouldn't also do what he did.


    Why is it up to Brown to explain why someone else should or shouldn't do what he did? Isn't that decision for the specific person?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    IMO, if she's going to essentially call him a "sl*t" - haha he posed nude for money -- he can respond in like kind -- thank God she didn't do the same.

    It's her option if she loses the race. Do blind people like porn?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : How are Brown's comments "sexist"? Apart from the fact that she's a female and he's a male? Would they be "sexist" if Warren were male? IMO, if she's going to essentially call him a "sl*t" - haha he posed nude for money -- he can respond in like kind -- thank God she didn't do the same. I can't see how that's sexist. At most, it's calling her ugly. Which isn't exactly an adult maneuver. But neither was hers.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    They were both petty.  But Warren's remark was not about his appearance, it was about his ethical choice to pose nude.  (Note I didn't say moral choice. He did what he had to do. So be it.)  This isn't unusual; many students strip or work as artists models.

    Women, particularly those in a position of authority, have a constant struggle to be defined by their work and ideas and not their appearance.  (For men, it's being defined by their manliness.)  It's pervasive, but it's still sexist.

    Personally, I think both comments were reflexive, not deep commentary, and as such no big deal...however, some people might see the underlying subliminal messages as instructive.  Not me, but some people....
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : How are Brown's comments "sexist"? Apart from the fact that she's a female and he's a male? Would they be "sexist" if Warren were male? IMO, if she's going to essentially call him a "sl*t" - haha he posed nude for money -- he can respond in like kind -- thank God she didn't do the same. I can't see how that's sexist. At most, it's calling her ugly. Which isn't exactly an adult maneuver. But neither was hers.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    She just told the "little people" what she thinks of them and their struggles.  What an elitist jerk she is.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : They were both petty.  But Warren's remark was not about his appearance, it was about his ethical choice to pose nude.  (Note I didn't say moral choice. He did what he had to do. So be it.)  This isn't unusual; many students strip or work as artists models. Women, particularly those in a position of authority, have a constant struggle to be defined by their work and ideas and not their appearance.  (For men, it's being defined by their manliness.)  It's pervasive, but it's still sexist. Personally, I think both comments were reflexive, not deep commentary, and as such no big deal...however, some people might see the underlying subliminal messages as instructive.  Not me, but some people....
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    I think Prof. Warren's comment was a rehearsed one,its like she was jusrt waiting for the opportunity to bring it up.  It's almost like someone gave her the question before it was asked.

    It's unfortunate that Sen Brown took the bait and commented at all, but he was fully justified.  This just provided Joan Vennochi an opportunity for another Sen Brown hit piece, she was overdue as its been a few weeks.

    The comment was sophomoric not sexist, but Joan will call it an assault against women and blah, blah, blah..........

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobc33. Show bobc33's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    I've seen Liz Warren with her clothes off, not a pretty sight unless you've broken open your second twelvepack and it is after midnight.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]I've seen Liz Warren with her clothes off, not a pretty sight unless you've broken open your second twelvepack and it is after midnight.
    Posted by bobc33[/QUOTE]


    Don't play into their hands.

    Warren clearly threw down the gauntlet, that Brown, being raised in a poor family, should not have done everything he could legally do to lift himself up.  In Warrens world, Brown is lower class and needs to stay there and be happy and helpless, save the benevolent gifts from the government.

    What Warren is trying to do is set a battlefield where she can crow on about Brown, but anything said against her is IMMEDIATELY branded sexist.  The Globe will fall in line.

    This is the thought process of the left:  elites are good, and the poor need to stay in their place and be happy with the crumbs doles out from Washington.

     Liberals only thrive when victims stay victims.  You can't stay in power based on helping victims if you actually help them.  When people help themselves, government is emasculated.  Democrats don't want their powerful control to be diminished by people actually succeeding on their own.

    Do we really need this Warren person reinforcing a dependence on government?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobc33. Show bobc33's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : Don't play into their hands. Warren clearly threw down the gauntlet, that Brown, being raised in a poor family, should not have done everything he could legally do to lift himself up.  In Warrens world, Brown is lower class and needs to stay there and be happy and helpless, save the benevolent gifts from the government. What Warren is trying to do is set a battlefield where she can crow on about Brown, but anything said against her is IMMEDIATELY branded sexist.  The Globe will fall in line. This is the thought process of the left:  elites are good, and the poor need to stay in their place and be happy with the crumbs doles out from Washington.  Liberals only thrive when victims stay victims.  You can't stay in power based on helping victims if you actually help them.  When people help themselves, government is emasculated.  Democrats don't want their powerful control to be diminished by people actually succeeding on their own. Do we really need this Warren person reinforcing a dependence on government?
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    skeeter, you are the voice of reason and make sense.   Me, a bit irrational and sometime the ambien takes over late at night and in the morning I see posts I don't remember making.....
     

Share