Deriving the minimum income for families requires a bit of calculation. The CBO adjusts household income by the square root of the number of people in the household. So, the minimum income of a two-person household in the top 10% in 2007 was $102,900 * 1.414 = $145,500.
Hopefully, Slashdot readers will be able to calculate the minimum income for other family sizes. The CBO's methodology is described in more detail on the last page of the document linked above.
The reason you drink only beer, no matter your objections and thoughts on the matter is that you're relatively sure it won't infect you with an illness.
In colonial times, the United States was similar. The first batch of beer went to the pubs or into private stashes.
The wort was re-used for multiple batches, which were much lower in alcohol content. But, it was enough to kill the pathogens and was drank at every meal. It was even served to children.
Looks alot like a V-1 or Loon but with hard points on the wings and turbojet instead of pulse jet. So late 50s technology designed with CAD.
Actually, it looks like a Tupolev Tu-141 or Tupolev Tu-143. The claimed range of 1,000 km matches the Tu-141, but I don't see the forward canards in the video.
Perhaps it is just a 1970's Soviet recon drone with a bomb added?
There are laws, but not much willingness to enforce them, and no traffic lights at all.
Let me get this straight. The police aren't enforcing the existing laws. There's no political infrastructure to install and maintain traffic lights.
Who is going to collect the fines? You aren't.
Why do you think the police will collect the fines? They aren't enforcing existing traffic laws.
In the unlikely event they do so, what makes you believe they will give you your share? It's more than likely to go directly into someone's pocket.
It sounds like your problem goes far beyond enforcement of traffic laws. And until that problem is addressed, it's unlikely that any technological solution will help.
The infected computer was one being used by mechanics to enter maintenance log entries. According to the article, an alert is supposed to be raised if three failures in the same part or subsystem occurred. If I understand the broken English correctly, they would have taken the plane out of service had the maintenance log entry been completed before the plane attempted to take off.
But, the problem that was supposed to be logged was reportedly an overheated pitot tube. That was not the cause of the crash: the report says that the pilots did not set the flaps correctly and a warning alarm did not go off. This was not related to the problem with the computer being used by mechanics.
The article appears to be trying to link two independent events: a separate problem with the plane and an error by the pilots. Or maybe it's just the broken English translation.
So explain to me then how Dick Cheny and Robert Novak conspired to "leak" the name of a CIA operative that was actively engaged in operations, compromised her and everyone she had contact with, but that wasn't treason?
It wasn't Dick Cheney that out'ed Valerie Plame to Robert Novak.
It was Richard Armitrage, US Deputy Secretary of State. Robert Novak identified his source very early in the investigation, so Patrick Fitzgerald knew who it was. Yet, he was able to convict "Scooter" Libby on charges of lying under oath. Ironically, those falsehoods concerned when Libby learned that Plame was a CIA agent, not whether he told anyone else.
While Novak would not be subject to the laws concerning publication of classified information, Armitage was --- and at this date, he has not been prosecuted.
This whole "it's not a democracy" BS was just started by idiots who think republican vs. democrat is some sort of dichtonomy because the US parties are named that - and they feel that the one named "republicans" is the only legitimate one.
The modern Republican Party didn't even exist until 1854, when it was formed from an anti-slavery coalition. The debate about the differences between a republic and a democracy began long before that.
Today, this meme usually arises when someone is protesting against the unchecked expansion of government power. It's about the question of whether a majority vote is all that is needed.
Back in 1928, the Army published a training manual that made the distinction between the two:
First, a Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
And next, a Democracy:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting of any, for direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
FDR is alleged to have ordered all copies of this training manual destroyed in pursuit of Depression-era legislation.
A bit of hyperbole? Yes, but the point is that the conflict isn't about the naming of political parties. It goes back quite a while, even to several of the founding fathers of the US. With a bit of Googling, you can find lots of quotes in which they contrast a democracy and a republic.
He asked for official help in redacting, and they rejected the request. If anyone gets killed because of this, it's because of the US military and their unwillingness to protect the people in those documents.
Sorry, but it's Assante's responsibility. He is the one (or at least he represents the organization) that wants to release documents. The Pentagon didn't give the documents to him, and the person that did so was acting against explicit orders from the Pentagon.
So, Assange and his friends are responsible for the aftermath. However, I don't think he is losing much sleep over it, since he was recently quoted:
He expressed some ambivalence about the need to protect Afghans who have helped the U.S. military. "We are not obligated to protect other people's sources," including sources of "spy organizations or militaries," unless it is from "unjust retribution," he said, adding that the Afghan public "should know about" people who have engaged in "genuinely traitorous" acts.
So, cooperating with the US military to fight terrorists within Afghanistan may be a "genuinely traitorous act". I think it's starting to become clear whose side that Assange is really on.
Interesting, he says this: "Of course it wasn't the CRA that caused everything. The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. This was a necessary, although not sufficient, cause for the mortgage mess."
Yes, and that exact phrase linked to this article: Oh Stop: Of Course The CRA Didn't Cause Everything. And that article is accompanied by a picture of a guy holding his fingers in his ears and shutting his eyes so he can't see/hear contrary evidence. Does that look like anyone that you see in the mirror every morning?
The article opens with:
"I'm amazed at the lengths people will go to in their attempts to dismiss any evidence of the role the CRA played in loosening lending standards. Perhaps the worst argument they make is directed against a claim that I've never heard anyone make--the imaginary claim that the CRA somehow caused the entire mortgage mess, financial crisis and economic depression."
Near the end, the author adds all the other factors he thinks contributed:
"Just to make things clear, I think that to really blow things up we needed low interest rates, the growth of securitization, a glut of foreign savings pouring into the US, a lack of yield from other asset classes, ratings agencies operating with minimal knowledge but lots of optimism, a faith in the ever-rising housing market, high oil prices, consumers looking to flip high-interest unsecured debt into lower-interest home-equity debt, a short-term federal budget surplus eating into the availability of Treasury debt, Fannie and Freddie's mixed mission, the evaporation of profits from investment banking and brokerage, unrestrained shareholder demand for high profit margins, off-balance sheet financial innovations such as SIVs, unconvincing and non-influential risk managers, risk-pricing of MBS based on CDS pricing, a White House dedicated to expanding low-income and minority home ownership for partisan political reasons, economists touting the positive externalities of home-ownership, a poor understanding that heterogeneous populations have different responses to market movements and over-reliance on centralized and automated mortgage underwriting."
And he concludes:
But there really shouldn't be anymore room to doubt the significant role played by the CRA and the regulators charged with enforcing it.
I don't think any of these articles from partisan sources "prove" anything. But, I thought I'd let the author express his conclusion in his words.
The CRA governs Fannie and Freddie, which I'm not denying are problematic, but it doesn't govern Countrywide financial, New Century, Morgan Stanley, HSBC, and H&R block, and all those other private companies that accounted for the vast majority of the sub-prime mess.
Actually, those companies do have to comply with the CRA, in exchange for minor things like mergers, acquisitions, and expansions.
And I understand the contention that the CRA's effect should have been limited, there are some that believe that it resulted in everyone lowering their creditworthiness standards to the tipping point, even for non-CRA loans. Personally, I'm not convinced either way -- I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
No, they aren't. My little community bank (not a credit union, a bank) does not do mergers, acquisitions, or expansion. They serve one community and have for the last fifty years. They still follow the CRA, even though not following it would cost them nothing. And they are still in business.
That's nice that your little community bank has done so well. And I'm sure there are plenty of other community banks that have done well, and there are certainly plenty that have not. What happens to the ones that didn't do well? For the most part, they are acquired by solvent banks -- who had to comply with the CRA.
From the first article that comes up:
Oh, please. that's The American Prospect, whose subtitle right in the banner at the top of the page is "Liberal Intelligence"
The author admits to changing his mind (he previously agreed with you). The article addresses various defenses of the CRA, point-by-point. You probably won't agree with any of them, and frankly I find some of his conclusions a bit lacking in evidence. However, if you take the time to follow some of the linked evidence, there's a lot of interesting information.
No, the collapse is not bipartisan. I love how you try to prove that it was all Clinton's fault, and when that is proven ludicrous, fall back to the default position of Conservatives everywhere: "but the other side is just as bad!"
spun, I'll make you the same challenge you made earlier:
Back it up with sources or shut up.
I completely destroyed your challenge with your own citations. Do you think you will do as well?
I never said it was "all Clinton's fault". In fact, I didn't even bring up Clinton until you tried to redefine the question as "new regulations Clinton signed into law". And I even cited the act that he signed: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- all of whom were Republicans -- rather than the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999".
I don't think you actually believe that. I think you think liberals are hippie commie scum. But if you can't win an argument, at least sow the type of cynicism that keeps people from voting, because when the common man does not vote, the rich and their Republican lapdogs win.
spun, I don't think you are "hippie commie scum". I just think you are a fool. I've found they come in all political flavors, but you all share the same flaw: they don't realize how stupid they look.
Man, you do give up easily. There's one author that has a particular view, but you will not get into a discussion with this person because you suspect there's a group involved somewhere? Grow a spine.
My spine is fine.
I just have better things to do than get into an edit-war over something as inconsequential as a Wikipedia article that no one else reads.
I find that Wikipedia is really useful for some subjects. For political issues, it's rarely objective. However, in this case, it was amusing to find statements that directly contradicted the person that originally cited it.
Nothing in this line of debate can possibly lead to the conclusion that Democrats had anything to do with the financial collapse brought about by deregulation.
And therein lies your problem.
It doesn't take much effort at all to sift through all the competing viewpoints and realize that the responsibility for the financial collapse is bipartisan.
But, then there's people like you with ideological blinders that look foolish because they won't acknowledge this truth.
Compliance is voluntary. Not complying will not bring penalties to existing bank business. Trying to claim otherwise is stretching the definition of 'required.'
In the real world, expansion, mergers, and acquisitions were a requirement for being competitive in the banking business -- especially during the 80's and 90's. I suppose it's appropriate that we are discussing definitions when discussing Clinton's actions. What's next --- discussing the meaning of 'is'?
If you'd bothered to read the article, you'd know that before the CRA, banks were simply red-lining minority communities. The CRA was necessary to enforce equal opportunities.
Had you bothered to read the article and its citations, you would have known that redlining had already been prohibited by the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The CRA simply added new criteria for compliance.
You also have not addressed the blatant untruth that Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA had anything to do with the financial crisis.
Fannie and Freddie have been placed into government convervatorship, with a commitment of up to $200 billion in capital to keep them solvent. I would say that they had something to do with the financial crisis.
And while you may think it's a "blatant untruth", even the Wikipedia article you cited contains at least three citations from people that believe the CRA contributed to the financial crisis.
The CRA did not force any banks to make dodgy loans. It simply asked banks to be colour blind when evaluating loan applications.
Actually, it required banks to be agnostic about any characteristics of the borrower (race, location of the property, etc.) except for their ability to repay the loan. That's a good thing, except that compliance was measured according to statistical factors. There's some disagreement about whether those statistical factors properly took credit-worthiness into account. I've also wondered if it properly accounted for the stability in the value of the collateral property.
However, it also gave community groups the opportunity to "complain" about a bank and have those factored into whether the bank was complying with the CRA. That put them in a vulnerable position, and there have been some claims that banks were blackmailed into making direct "donations" to community groups in order to get mergers approved.
The whole mortgage melt down was caused by greed, lying to applicants to get them to take on mortgages they could not afford, then repackaging these bad mortgages as financial instruments that the raters (moodys etc..) rated triple A when they were junk and reselling them thus taking the risk away from the banks that made the bad loans.
I absolutely agree. But, I don't agree that the blame falls on either of the major political parties exclusively. I believe that both share the blame, essentially equally. There's some evidence that the Republicans tried to address the Fannie Mae problems in the early 2000's, but their control of Congress was tenuous in the Senate and the public opposition by Dodd (D-CT) sunk it. However, I still think the Republicans share some of the blame for not pursuing it.
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
That appears to be pretty black and white to me, but maybe my glasses need a stronger rose tinting.
Even if it did, you have not proven that Clinton had anything to do with it. The article itself says nothing about the where the new directions came from.
From the article again:
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
Does one of us have a reading comprehension problem?
It does say that compliance with the CRA is voluntary.
The article doesn't have any of these words in it:
Blah blah blah wiki sucks 'cause it doesn't agree with me whine whine. Pony up your own sources or admit you've arrived at your conclusions based on irrationality and emotion.
My problem with the Wikipedia article is that it doesn't abide by the NPOV rules. The original author has done a fine job of presenting one view, but gives short shrift to opposing views. If I thought it was a worthwhile effort, I'd add the additional sources. But, I don't have the time for the edit wars that always occur on Wikipedia if someone challenges the group-think.
Please, tell us what new regulations Clinton signed into law that required banks to comply with the CRA. Back it up with sources or shut up.
I was replying to your assertion:
It should be noted that compliance with the CRA is entirely voluntary, if you don't want the tasty government tax credits, don't comply.
This is an outright falsehood, according to your own citation:
To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.)
You can try to dodge it by trying to redefine the discussion to CRA changes made by Clinton, but this original requirement dates back to 1977, back when Carter was President and Democrats controlled Congress.
But, since you asked what new regulations Clinton signed, I'll quote Clinton himself from the article you cited:
On signing the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act", President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".
Clinton was referring to a compromise secured by Senator's Dodd (D-CT) and Schumer (D-NY), in which the FDIC Act was amended to allow banks to merge or expand into financial holding institutions only if they followed the CRA compliance guidelines.
The ironic part is this was in the section immediately below the one that you quoted in your original posting. Had you bothered to read just a bit further, you might have realized that your assertion was completely bogus.
It should be noted that compliance with the CRA is entirely voluntary, if you don't want the tasty government tax credits, don't comply.
This is absolute bullshit, and only takes a few moments to refute by reading the rest of your own citation.
The Wikipedia article is hardly neutral, and after reading the discussion tab I can see that I'm not the only one that think it seems to be designed to refute any possibility that the CRA had anything to do with the mortgage meltdown -- quoting lots of people to support that view while ignoring plenty of contrary opinions.
But, even the Wikipedia article can't hide the fact that the CRA imposed compliance requirements on banks that wanted to open new bank branches, merge with another bank, or acquire another bank.
You can also create a sale/auction contract on a PLEX FROM ANYWHERE IN THE GAME (not from the station you are located), so again, no reason to ever move a PLEX. Keep it in a permanent station. I can't see any reason at all to move them.
There used to be a limit on the number of PLEX'es you can create (using real money) in single day on a single account. Is this still true?
However, from what I've read elsewhere, this guy was buying PLEXes on the open market with ISK, not real money. Due to the competition and volume, prices in Jita are generally (at least slightly) lower -- I presume he was moving them elsewhere to sell at a profit.
However, he was an idiot for thinking he could move them in a frigate without being spotted. He should have been traveling in a heavily armored ship with many escorts and advance scouts watching for hostiles.
I think the President making bond owners, BOND OWNERS, take pennies on the dollar while giving a companies assets to a union would be a "scandal".
It's especially interesting because some of the biggest holders of those bonds were public employee pension funds. As far as I can tell, the beneficiaries are mostly unaware that their future retirement benefits will be reduced because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
How much time will we have before groups start to release faked documents to it in an attempt to discredit their rivals?
To measure that interval, your clock would have to run backwards.
Fake, but Accurate
The list goes on and on...
Fucking, Austria
Intercourse, PA
Hell, MI
The cutoff for the top 10% of income is $110,000.
The minimum income of taxpayers in the top 10% in 2007 was $102,900, for single-person households.
http://cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/all_tables.pdf
It's the last table on page 9.
Deriving the minimum income for families requires a bit of calculation. The CBO adjusts household income by the square root of the number of people in the household. So, the minimum income of a two-person household in the top 10% in 2007 was $102,900 * 1.414 = $145,500.
Hopefully, Slashdot readers will be able to calculate the minimum income for other family sizes. The CBO's methodology is described in more detail on the last page of the document linked above.
If you actually try to fill all 4 seats or carry luggage there is not much spare capacity for anything else.
You can fill the tanks, or you can fill the seats (with adults).
You can't do both at the same time, and stay under the gross weight limit.
[I used to own a 172, although without the ballistic recovery system]
The reason you drink only beer, no matter your objections and thoughts on the matter is that you're relatively sure it won't infect you with an illness.
In colonial times, the United States was similar. The first batch of beer went to the pubs or into private stashes.
The wort was re-used for multiple batches, which were much lower in alcohol content. But, it was enough to kill the pathogens and was drank at every meal. It was even served to children.
Looks alot like a V-1 or Loon but with hard points on the wings and turbojet instead of pulse jet. So late 50s technology designed with CAD.
Actually, it looks like a Tupolev Tu-141 or Tupolev Tu-143. The claimed range of 1,000 km matches the Tu-141, but I don't see the forward canards in the video.
Perhaps it is just a 1970's Soviet recon drone with a bomb added?
There are laws, but not much willingness to enforce them, and no traffic lights at all.
Let me get this straight. The police aren't enforcing the existing laws. There's no political infrastructure to install and maintain traffic lights.
Who is going to collect the fines? You aren't.
Why do you think the police will collect the fines? They aren't enforcing existing traffic laws.
In the unlikely event they do so, what makes you believe they will give you your share? It's more than likely to go directly into someone's pocket.
It sounds like your problem goes far beyond enforcement of traffic laws. And until that problem is addressed, it's unlikely that any technological solution will help.
But, the problem that was supposed to be logged was reportedly an overheated pitot tube. That was not the cause of the crash: the report says that the pilots did not set the flaps correctly and a warning alarm did not go off. This was not related to the problem with the computer being used by mechanics.
The article appears to be trying to link two independent events: a separate problem with the plane and an error by the pilots. Or maybe it's just the broken English translation.
So explain to me then how Dick Cheny and Robert Novak conspired to "leak" the name of a CIA operative that was actively engaged in operations, compromised her and everyone she had contact with, but that wasn't treason?
It wasn't Dick Cheney that out'ed Valerie Plame to Robert Novak.
It was Richard Armitrage, US Deputy Secretary of State. Robert Novak identified his source very early in the investigation, so Patrick Fitzgerald knew who it was. Yet, he was able to convict "Scooter" Libby on charges of lying under oath. Ironically, those falsehoods concerned when Libby learned that Plame was a CIA agent, not whether he told anyone else.
While Novak would not be subject to the laws concerning publication of classified information, Armitage was --- and at this date, he has not been prosecuted.
This whole "it's not a democracy" BS was just started by idiots who think republican vs. democrat is some sort of dichtonomy because the US parties are named that - and they feel that the one named "republicans" is the only legitimate one.
The modern Republican Party didn't even exist until 1854, when it was formed from an anti-slavery coalition. The debate about the differences between a republic and a democracy began long before that.
Today, this meme usually arises when someone is protesting against the unchecked expansion of government power. It's about the question of whether a majority vote is all that is needed.
Back in 1928, the Army published a training manual that made the distinction between the two:
First, a Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
And next, a Democracy:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting of any, for direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
FDR is alleged to have ordered all copies of this training manual destroyed in pursuit of Depression-era legislation.
A bit of hyperbole? Yes, but the point is that the conflict isn't about the naming of political parties. It goes back quite a while, even to several of the founding fathers of the US. With a bit of Googling, you can find lots of quotes in which they contrast a democracy and a republic.
He asked for official help in redacting, and they rejected the request. If anyone gets killed because of this, it's because of the US military and their unwillingness to protect the people in those documents.
Sorry, but it's Assante's responsibility. He is the one (or at least he represents the organization) that wants to release documents. The Pentagon didn't give the documents to him, and the person that did so was acting against explicit orders from the Pentagon.
So, Assange and his friends are responsible for the aftermath. However, I don't think he is losing much sleep over it, since he was recently quoted:
He expressed some ambivalence about the need to protect Afghans who have helped the U.S. military. "We are not obligated to protect other people's sources," including sources of "spy organizations or militaries," unless it is from "unjust retribution," he said, adding that the Afghan public "should know about" people who have engaged in "genuinely traitorous" acts.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425900461793766.html
So, cooperating with the US military to fight terrorists within Afghanistan may be a "genuinely traitorous act". I think it's starting to become clear whose side that Assange is really on.
Interesting, he says this: "Of course it wasn't the CRA that caused everything. The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. This was a necessary, although not sufficient, cause for the mortgage mess."
Yes, and that exact phrase linked to this article: Oh Stop: Of Course The CRA Didn't Cause Everything. And that article is accompanied by a picture of a guy holding his fingers in his ears and shutting his eyes so he can't see/hear contrary evidence. Does that look like anyone that you see in the mirror every morning?
The article opens with:
"I'm amazed at the lengths people will go to in their attempts to dismiss any evidence of the role the CRA played in loosening lending standards. Perhaps the worst argument they make is directed against a claim that I've never heard anyone make--the imaginary claim that the CRA somehow caused the entire mortgage mess, financial crisis and economic depression." Near the end, the author adds all the other factors he thinks contributed:
"Just to make things clear, I think that to really blow things up we needed low interest rates, the growth of securitization, a glut of foreign savings pouring into the US, a lack of yield from other asset classes, ratings agencies operating with minimal knowledge but lots of optimism, a faith in the ever-rising housing market, high oil prices, consumers looking to flip high-interest unsecured debt into lower-interest home-equity debt, a short-term federal budget surplus eating into the availability of Treasury debt, Fannie and Freddie's mixed mission, the evaporation of profits from investment banking and brokerage, unrestrained shareholder demand for high profit margins, off-balance sheet financial innovations such as SIVs, unconvincing and non-influential risk managers, risk-pricing of MBS based on CDS pricing, a White House dedicated to expanding low-income and minority home ownership for partisan political reasons, economists touting the positive externalities of home-ownership, a poor understanding that heterogeneous populations have different responses to market movements and over-reliance on centralized and automated mortgage underwriting."
And he concludes:
But there really shouldn't be anymore room to doubt the significant role played by the CRA and the regulators charged with enforcing it.
I don't think any of these articles from partisan sources "prove" anything. But, I thought I'd let the author express his conclusion in his words.
The CRA governs Fannie and Freddie, which I'm not denying are problematic, but it doesn't govern Countrywide financial, New Century, Morgan Stanley, HSBC, and H&R block, and all those other private companies that accounted for the vast majority of the sub-prime mess.
Actually, those companies do have to comply with the CRA, in exchange for minor things like mergers, acquisitions, and expansions.
And I understand the contention that the CRA's effect should have been limited, there are some that believe that it resulted in everyone lowering their creditworthiness standards to the tipping point, even for non-CRA loans. Personally, I'm not convinced either way -- I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Just to be clear, you mentioned Clinton in your first post in this thread.
My first post to this thread is here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1749510&cid=33206826
I didn't say anything at all about Clinton. Perhaps you were referring to this one?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1749510&cid=33208534
In that one, I replied to your posting to point out your reading comprehension problems, not to make a political attack on Clinton.
And can you link to the post where you mentioned Gramm-Leach-Bliley?
That would be here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1749510&cid=33208328
No, they aren't. My little community bank (not a credit union, a bank) does not do mergers, acquisitions, or expansion. They serve one community and have for the last fifty years. They still follow the CRA, even though not following it would cost them nothing. And they are still in business.
That's nice that your little community bank has done so well. And I'm sure there are plenty of other community banks that have done well, and there are certainly plenty that have not. What happens to the ones that didn't do well? For the most part, they are acquired by solvent banks -- who had to comply with the CRA.
From the first article that comes up:
Oh, please. that's The American Prospect, whose subtitle right in the banner at the top of the page is "Liberal Intelligence"
I'll offer an alternative: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending. It's from the "Business Insider", which is hardly non-partisan -- but no more (or less) so than the "American Prospect".
The author admits to changing his mind (he previously agreed with you). The article addresses various defenses of the CRA, point-by-point. You probably won't agree with any of them, and frankly I find some of his conclusions a bit lacking in evidence. However, if you take the time to follow some of the linked evidence, there's a lot of interesting information.
No, the collapse is not bipartisan. I love how you try to prove that it was all Clinton's fault, and when that is proven ludicrous, fall back to the default position of Conservatives everywhere: "but the other side is just as bad!"
spun, I'll make you the same challenge you made earlier:
Back it up with sources or shut up.
I completely destroyed your challenge with your own citations. Do you think you will do as well?
I never said it was "all Clinton's fault". In fact, I didn't even bring up Clinton until you tried to redefine the question as "new regulations Clinton signed into law". And I even cited the act that he signed: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- all of whom were Republicans -- rather than the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999".
I don't think you actually believe that. I think you think liberals are hippie commie scum. But if you can't win an argument, at least sow the type of cynicism that keeps people from voting, because when the common man does not vote, the rich and their Republican lapdogs win.
spun, I don't think you are "hippie commie scum". I just think you are a fool. I've found they come in all political flavors, but you all share the same flaw: they don't realize how stupid they look.
Man, you do give up easily. There's one author that has a particular view, but you will not get into a discussion with this person because you suspect there's a group involved somewhere? Grow a spine.
My spine is fine.
I just have better things to do than get into an edit-war over something as inconsequential as a Wikipedia article that no one else reads.
I find that Wikipedia is really useful for some subjects. For political issues, it's rarely objective. However, in this case, it was amusing to find statements that directly contradicted the person that originally cited it.
Nothing in this line of debate can possibly lead to the conclusion that Democrats had anything to do with the financial collapse brought about by deregulation.
And therein lies your problem.
It doesn't take much effort at all to sift through all the competing viewpoints and realize that the responsibility for the financial collapse is bipartisan.
But, then there's people like you with ideological blinders that look foolish because they won't acknowledge this truth.
Compliance is voluntary. Not complying will not bring penalties to existing bank business. Trying to claim otherwise is stretching the definition of 'required.'
In the real world, expansion, mergers, and acquisitions were a requirement for being competitive in the banking business -- especially during the 80's and 90's. I suppose it's appropriate that we are discussing definitions when discussing Clinton's actions. What's next --- discussing the meaning of 'is'?
If you'd bothered to read the article, you'd know that before the CRA, banks were simply red-lining minority communities. The CRA was necessary to enforce equal opportunities.
Had you bothered to read the article and its citations, you would have known that redlining had already been prohibited by the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The CRA simply added new criteria for compliance.
You also have not addressed the blatant untruth that Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA had anything to do with the financial crisis.
Fannie and Freddie have been placed into government convervatorship, with a commitment of up to $200 billion in capital to keep them solvent. I would say that they had something to do with the financial crisis.
And while you may think it's a "blatant untruth", even the Wikipedia article you cited contains at least three citations from people that believe the CRA contributed to the financial crisis.
The CRA did not force any banks to make dodgy loans. It simply asked banks to be colour blind when evaluating loan applications.
Actually, it required banks to be agnostic about any characteristics of the borrower (race, location of the property, etc.) except for their ability to repay the loan. That's a good thing, except that compliance was measured according to statistical factors. There's some disagreement about whether those statistical factors properly took credit-worthiness into account. I've also wondered if it properly accounted for the stability in the value of the collateral property.
However, it also gave community groups the opportunity to "complain" about a bank and have those factored into whether the bank was complying with the CRA. That put them in a vulnerable position, and there have been some claims that banks were blackmailed into making direct "donations" to community groups in order to get mergers approved.
The whole mortgage melt down was caused by greed, lying to applicants to get them to take on mortgages they could not afford, then repackaging these bad mortgages as financial instruments that the raters (moodys etc..) rated triple A when they were junk and reselling them thus taking the risk away from the banks that made the bad loans.
I absolutely agree. But, I don't agree that the blame falls on either of the major political parties exclusively. I believe that both share the blame, essentially equally. There's some evidence that the Republicans tried to address the Fannie Mae problems in the early 2000's, but their control of Congress was tenuous in the Senate and the public opposition by Dodd (D-CT) sunk it. However, I still think the Republicans share some of the blame for not pursuing it.
That link does not back up the claim that "Some disasters are caused by policy change due to political pressure."
The article (Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending) says:
That appears to be pretty black and white to me, but maybe my glasses need a stronger rose tinting.
Even if it did, you have not proven that Clinton had anything to do with it. The article itself says nothing about the where the new directions came from.
From the article again:
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
Does one of us have a reading comprehension problem?
It does say that compliance with the CRA is voluntary.
The article doesn't have any of these words in it:
Did you even bother to read the article?
Blah blah blah wiki sucks 'cause it doesn't agree with me whine whine. Pony up your own sources or admit you've arrived at your conclusions based on irrationality and emotion.
My problem with the Wikipedia article is that it doesn't abide by the NPOV rules. The original author has done a fine job of presenting one view, but gives short shrift to opposing views. If I thought it was a worthwhile effort, I'd add the additional sources. But, I don't have the time for the edit wars that always occur on Wikipedia if someone challenges the group-think.
Please, tell us what new regulations Clinton signed into law that required banks to comply with the CRA. Back it up with sources or shut up.
I was replying to your assertion:
It should be noted that compliance with the CRA is entirely voluntary, if you don't want the tasty government tax credits, don't comply.
This is an outright falsehood, according to your own citation:
To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.)
You can try to dodge it by trying to redefine the discussion to CRA changes made by Clinton, but this original requirement dates back to 1977, back when Carter was President and Democrats controlled Congress.
But, since you asked what new regulations Clinton signed, I'll quote Clinton himself from the article you cited:
On signing the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act", President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".
Clinton was referring to a compromise secured by Senator's Dodd (D-CT) and Schumer (D-NY), in which the FDIC Act was amended to allow banks to merge or expand into financial holding institutions only if they followed the CRA compliance guidelines.
The ironic part is this was in the section immediately below the one that you quoted in your original posting. Had you bothered to read just a bit further, you might have realized that your assertion was completely bogus.
It should be noted that compliance with the CRA is entirely voluntary, if you don't want the tasty government tax credits, don't comply.
This is absolute bullshit, and only takes a few moments to refute by reading the rest of your own citation.
The Wikipedia article is hardly neutral, and after reading the discussion tab I can see that I'm not the only one that think it seems to be designed to refute any possibility that the CRA had anything to do with the mortgage meltdown -- quoting lots of people to support that view while ignoring plenty of contrary opinions.
But, even the Wikipedia article can't hide the fact that the CRA imposed compliance requirements on banks that wanted to open new bank branches, merge with another bank, or acquire another bank.
You can also create a sale/auction contract on a PLEX FROM ANYWHERE IN THE GAME (not from the station you are located), so again, no reason to ever move a PLEX. Keep it in a permanent station. I can't see any reason at all to move them.
There used to be a limit on the number of PLEX'es you can create (using real money) in single day on a single account. Is this still true?
However, from what I've read elsewhere, this guy was buying PLEXes on the open market with ISK, not real money. Due to the competition and volume, prices in Jita are generally (at least slightly) lower -- I presume he was moving them elsewhere to sell at a profit.
However, he was an idiot for thinking he could move them in a frigate without being spotted. He should have been traveling in a heavily armored ship with many escorts and advance scouts watching for hostiles.
I think the President making bond owners, BOND OWNERS, take pennies on the dollar while giving a companies assets to a union would be a "scandal".
It's especially interesting because some of the biggest holders of those bonds were public employee pension funds. As far as I can tell, the beneficiaries are mostly unaware that their future retirement benefits will be reduced because of it.