Private insurance companies are paying millions of dollars every month to shareholders and overpaid CEOs. I work in healthcare and these organizations are full of overpaid management and very inefficient when it comes to actually delivering care to people. I can't see how public healthcare could POSSIBLY be any worse.
In other countries where they have public health care it's much more efficient and the money goes to actually providing health care, not profits.
@imre1000 it is "neither nor" or "either or" not neither or. Go back to school, learn the English language; then lecture us on what our govt. can or cannot do.
If people think a Public Option is government plan to takeover the health industry and destroy other businesses then the same people should ask the government to shutdown the US Postal Services. People can start paying $10 to have a birthday card and bill payments sent via UPS and other private carriers.
@CommonSenseJoe - that's from disruptive technology and has nothing to do about the effectiveness of their business. If they want to compete on that level they would have to become a yahoo and post office put together.
Clinton enforced the fair housing laws, Fannie and Freddie bought up one bad loan after another - it was touted as a great success of the Clinton adm; disproportionate growth in minority home ownership, (Great Housing Boom of the 90s). Dodd, Frank, Waxman deregulated financial derivatives (CDR) enabling AIG, Countywide etc. Bush let them; he spends like a drunken lib. Subprime mortgages detonated the financial meltdown. The republican congress was called "The Do Nothing Congress" remember?
It's all relative, credit default swaps (CDSs) DEREGULATION by The Chair & members of the Senate Banking Committee enabled Financials like Countrywide to corrupt with progs like "FOA". A crisis driven by reckless, careless, unscrupulous actors in the mortgage lending ind. and AIG misrepresenting underwriting standards of loans creating the massive number of defaults in mortgage loans. Add House Chair Barney objecting to tighter regulation of Fannie & Freddie, GOV intrusion. CRA was the fuse.
Wow, so many right wingers here spreading their falsehoods. You guys like it here? I wonder how many of you are paid to be here. Scary, the people pushing their own agenda, isn't it?
The thing I haven't heard yet is whether this is going to include a mandate. The Democrats have shown themselves to be as evil as the Republicans of late - mandates and fines for people who didn't buy insurance were the one thing both sides were in agreement on. I'm still nervous about what's coming.
I thought the public options would be impossible to pass through the reconciliation process. I thought is was only for budget items (raise/cut taxes, fund miilitary, ect). Is this possible or just politics?
CommonSenseJoe... somehow I don't believe that... more like FoxNewsSenseJoe... maybe if you actually informed yourself and weren't just a tool for the Right Wing(NUTS) you would understand why the majority of Americans want health care. Then if you were really studious you could look at why America is falling apart and you may find the red herring... DEREGULATION!
I like how you justify the first statement with the second... but how did regulations "force" banks to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back?
Ridiculous. The areas where most mortgages failed have been in middle-class to upper middle-class neighborhoods, not in poor neighborhoods. The predatory subprime loans were not done to fill a CRA dictate (CRA loans tend to perform correctly), but to fill the need of investors to have high-yield investments.
Giving a mortgage to a poor person isn't inherently irresponsible. If the mortgage is small and in proportion with the borrower's ability to pay, it's OK.
The Poor are not confined to the poor neighborhoods (nor should they be).
"The law emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution. An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching.
The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA"
the law does not mandate that a bank comply, only that if it doesn't it wont be able to expand or merge Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 "increased public oversight of the process. It required the agencies to issue CRA ratings publicly and do written performance evaluations using facts and data to support the agencies' conclusions.
It also required a four-tiered CRA examination rating system with performance levels of "Outstanding," "Satisfactory," "Needs to Improve," or "Substantial Noncompliance." These rules increased pressure on banks to make mortgage home loans to inner-city and rural areas."
"FIRREA gives both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae additional responsibility to support mortgages for low- and moderate-income families."
this was a way out for the banks to sell those bad loans to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
"In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933"
it was Clinton, not Bush, that deregulated the financial Industry
It was the Republicans that wanted to keep these restrictions on Freddy & Fanny
watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A
"Giving a mortgage to a poor person isn't inherently irresponsible. If the mortgage is small and in proportion with the borrower's ability to pay, it's OK"
I agree, but a 20% down Payment should be required to make the borrower take responsibility or take a loss, defaults wouldn't have happened if the borrowers had money in it to lose
no regulation on a bank to make the loan the bank makes a loan based on the borrowers ability to pay it back. they would have used standard lending practices of 20% down & actually Verified the borrowers ability to pay the loan back. there would have been less people taking loans therefore housing prices wouldn't have bubbled (lower housing prices is good for poor people)
this would cause the banks to hold the loans because it is a safe loan that makes them & their banking customers (savers) money. in case of a default, the bank could easily recoup the money by selling the house at a fair market value or even 20% below because of the down payment
Your basic idea that regulations made the banks give bad loans is just plain wrong. It was predatory mortgage companies that popped up and gave bad loans, with no proof of income or assets, that caused the defaults. They did this because investors were asking for mortgage-backed securities, and not because of any regulation, especially not CRA.
These companies lied to people to sell them mortgages they couldn't afford. This is the national tendency of the free market to create bubbles at work.
"regulations made the banks give bad loans is just plain wrong"
regulations made the banks give bad loans is just plain Fact
a search on "Community Reinvestment Act " will show you that.
there's 2 participants in a loan transaction, lender & borrower. don't sign anything you don't understand. people need to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.
The Federal Reserve controls money supply, Inflation & Deflation. it is the Federal Reserve that controls the the Boom & Bust cycle, it is part of a progressive Planned Economy (Along with the Progressive income tax) & has nothing to do with the free market.
there are many Videos on YT that will explain the Federal Reserve
"Money masters" & "Money as debt" are 2 of my faves
Check the Long Depression, that was in the 19th century, before the coming of the Fed. Longer than the Great Depression, if less deep because the economy had a shorter distance to fall. This was in the era of free banking, which had more boom and bust cycles and more "panics" than the era of Keynesian consensus from the end of WWII to the 1980s. That era ended with a deep crisis, but unlike the previous ones, it was caused by real-life economics (oil crisis) and not just by financial bubbles.
I'd much rather live through a Long Depression or boom and bust cycles where I control my money then a Fiat Keynesian system where my money loses Value & I can't do anything about it.
in 1913 the dollar was worth $0.97 when the fed took over, today it's worth $0.03.
if your Interested in Monetary Policy check out the Ludwig von Mises Institute online.
Much of those Boom & Bust cycles had to do with Lending practices (Fractional reserve banking) & Bank Runs.
also the drop in dollar value was due to increases in gold supply. FDR finally found a way to do away with the drop in dollar value caused by Gold supply by stealing the people's Gold. LOL
Austrian economics reject empiricism, believing that when the facts don't fit their theory, the facts are wrong. They are a religion, I don't care for them.
Inflation in a system is much better than stability or worse, deflation. Inflation forces people to invest or spend their money if they want to maintain it. Deflation leads to money being hoarded and kept out of the economy. An arbitrary standard like the gold standard makes no sense, as the value of the standard can also fluctuate wildly.
Canada also has a central bank and "fiat" money, as does every country in the world. It just works better that way.
Now, that Americans, both government, private citizens, private companies, all of them, acted irresponsibly and are operating at deficit at every level is not an indictment against the system, such much as against the mentality of Americans in general.
not so, there are a few of us that lived within our means & didn't overextend our credit. problem is that those of us that did will pay for those who didn't through devalued currency. the US has a legal tender law that prevents us from using any other currency other than the dollar. Ron Paul has a Bill in that would change that. also Fiat Currency is against our constitution.
Fiat currency is not against your constitution. It is laughable to argue that the founding fathers were against it when they used it in the War of Independence to fund the war effort.
As to private citizens, go see the data on consumer debt, it is a problem not often discussed, but one that is very important. It's not just about mortgages and subprime lending.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have PowerTo coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shallcoin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.
Understand that the US constitution is people to government, all rights belong to the people - they give some power to the state - the state gives power to the federal gov
The CRA is decades old, if it did what you claim it does, it would have led to a bubble much earlier. It didn't, because it doesn't lead to banks giving bad loans, it leads to banks giving small mortgages in poorer neighborhoods, mortgage they are wary of and that are therefore generally safe.
It wasn't the poor neighborhoods that burst, it was the middle and upper middle neighborhoods. The CRA only regulates that mortgages be given in poor neighborhoods, not to poor people.
I've already cut & pasted many of the facts on it but in order to get a complete understanding you will need to look it up yourself, follow the links also they give the details of the bills & modifications of the bills. I Use Wiki because Liberals tend to agree that it's unbiased.
Bush had Greenspan lower the interest rates at the fed to encourage borrowing after the dotcom bubble to stimulate the economy
Wiki "Subprime mortgage crisis"
that is probably the most complete, non biased explanation
Regulations did not force banks to come up with 'creative' loans. The banks did that themselves soas to move freshly built McMansions and strip malls. Why? Because the same banks had extended construction loans to developers to build these places. If the banks didn't help move the new properties, then they would end up eating the construction loans. They were just passing the hot potato.
I know you desperately want to exonerate big business, but it just ain't so.
Personal Responsibility is taking responsibility for yourself & your actions. if you can't read or can't read Legalese why wouldn't you bring a lawyer or a really smart friend to sign for a loan that's going to be a major part of your life? it's not like your buying an IPod.
I want healthcare too. In fact, I would love a public option, but only if it actually was self-sustaining as the President said it would be. It would be a perfect opportunity to prove whether or not the government could compete with private insurance companies. If the public option had operate solely on the premiums paid by the public, I would support it and might even sign up.
America is failing apart because people falsely believe government can fix everything for them. Government can't.
I wish they would use what they themselves labeled the "nucleur option".
Not only will it cause a even more powerful backlash in middle America. It would ensure the removal of more establishment politicians in favor of small government "constitutionalists".
There are more than 20 states in the Union who have threatened to nullify Obamacare, even if it did pass.
The game is over. America is saying NO to socialism. Get over it.
What have you Republicants done for US lately? Honestly now, have you done anything in living memory to make America a better place?
Your negativism and sabotage is getting old.
BTW, the "Public Option" is referred to as the "nuclear option" because if it does pass, it will become untouchable, like Medicare, and it will blow away the "Party of No" and anyone who defined themselves by opposing it.
What makes you think the public option would be better than what we have now?
What the Democrats have done is set this country on a course of self-destruction. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are no longer financially viable.
I am sure that the Repugs would try their hardest to sabotage the public option, so it won't be as good as it could be. However, I've lived in countries with something like "Medicare for Anyone" and it is much better (and cheaper) than what the US has.
"Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are no longer financially viable. " Sure, thanks to vandalism by Repulbicans, there are some problems. Anyway, you grossly overstate the problems being experienced by these great American institutions.
Medicare was a financial mess from the FIRST year it was enacted. It has always cost more than projected. That is why they have cut the reimbursements to providers. Medicaid is a joke now because many providers will not even accept it. Social Security had some merit but it has been used to provide payments to parents of children with disabilities. Children who never worked a day in their lives. Alcoholism is considered a disability under SSI. Some great American institutions!
When has a Repug ever run a (successful) campaign based on eliminating or privatizing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? Never. Of course, the neocons would like nothing better than to get rid of these programs but couldn't win an election if they were honest with the electorate. As a result, they lie to the voters about their intentions then sabotage these programs to the best of their ability in back room deals so that idiots like you can claim the programs need to go.
So you are admitting that President Obama is lying. Good, we are making progress.
President Bush tried to reform Social Security. He put an honest proposal on the table and the Democrats with their media accomplices totally lied about it.
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are doomed programs. They will be bankrupt very soon and then what will happen?
You need to pay attention... tough for someone who has to tout their own "Common Sense", but still possible.
Republicants want to destroy Medicare and SS. They will all tell you so in private if you pretend to be a libertarian around them. They deny this in public, however. So who is lying?
Republicants try to divert monies for these programs to big business in the back room, but then complain about waste and corruption in public. Again, who is lying?
Republicans do not want to destroy Medicare and Social Security. THEY WANT TO FIX THEM! What part about "going broke" don't you understand. They are unsustainable. This whole healthcare takeover is designed to cover up the Medicare and Medicaid collapse. The Democrats keep more benefits to more and more people who do not pay for them. The rest of us cannot continue to fund S.S. for number of people on the program. Maybe you should pay attention.
what they don't tell you is the reason it is going broke is that they keep taking money out of it for fighting wars and large tax breaks for the super rich. They do not want to fix it at all, don't try to feed people that bullshit.
NO, what you fail to realize is that these programs are growing in COST to unsustainable levels. We are now giving SSI to children who have never worked a day in their lives. There are more and more older people and less people working to support the system. The healthcare grab was to cover up this fact. Over 50% of Americans are already on government insurance now, and it is killing the system.
I favor a public option under certain conditions. The problem is I don't trust the President or the Democrats when they talk about a public option.
At one time the President said he favored a public option that was NOT tax payer subsidized and would operate solely on the premiums paid by those in the plan. If that kind of plan was proposed today, I would support it. I do not believe that the government can run an insurance business any better than the private sector.
I'm thinking that too. If the Democrats show some fortitude and force the public option through along strict party lines, it will destroy the Republicants as a viable party in the US for the foreseeable future.
What's got Dems down in polls is their apparent spinelessness and desperate need to appease obstructionist Repugs. If they start acting like the party with the majority, their fortunes will improve. They weren't voted in to roll over and die at the first opportunity, after all.
You mean that I'm out of touch with the "real Americans" that Sarah Palin speaks of? Of course, you are right. Who would want to be in touch with them? You might catch something.
If, on the other hand, you mean that I am out of touch with the REAL real Americans, the ones that have most of their teeth, don't live in dilapidated trailers in the Deep South and don't have gun racks in the back windows of their rusty pickup trucks, then perhaps it is you that is out of touch.
What took them so long? It's about time we got back to talking about the public option. I say we reconcile those Republican vipers back into the 12th century B.C. They are the most hateful bunch of venomous snakes on the planet and have made life miserable for the last forty years. At last the Democrats are showing some much needed backbone.
Republicans do nothing but set up road blocks. They shout that old "tax and spend" crap about every good idea, meanwhile they bankrupt the country.
I have been a registered nurse with the VA since 1985. I am totally for government provided healthcare. The VA just keeps getting better and better and has become the first choice provider for the majority of my patients who also have health insurance.
Why don't we have a national vote on this neo-nazi health care crap.
Then it will be clear the people of this great Nation, DO NOT want a government run health care system.
All we want is the highly unregulated insurance companies to be reined in.
Change the health care bill to a strictly insurance company bill.
Most people don't know that insurance companies can lose money in the stock market and write it off or raise rates to make up for it. The only businesses in the country that can do so.
You related to the plumber's helper? Sound's like it.
You're complaining about the government's involvement in Medicare, right?
You ignorant conservative freaks are so profoundly stupid that it hurts.
Yeah, health insurance businesses are regulated... about as much as financial institutions. Thank you Republicant vandals for decades of "improving" America through deregulation. `Course, you clowns are too dishonest and cowardly to own what you bought..
Medicare reimburses providers 80% of cost, and Medicaid only 60% of cost. Who do you think pays the difference?
Insurance companies have plenty of regulations. However this "reform" is not about making regulations better. It is about eliminating private insurance all together. You have to deal with PROVIDERS to lower costs, not the insurance companies.
Sure, deall with the providers... I am all for that as well. In the meantime, let's eliminate the middlemen. What value do private insurance companies add to the process of health care? What do they cost us?
"None", and "A lot" are the respective answers you're looking for.
So why have them involved? "Because that's the way we've done it for the last few decades" is not good enough.
How we deal with the government? Private insurance companies provide a service to the consumer. If you don't want the service, don't become a customer. Health insurance companies make a 4% profit. If liberals think that is outrageous, then I suggest all these rich liberal one the Kerrys and such, start a health insurance company to compete. If they think there is such big money being made, they can prove it with their own money.
Who first invented health insurance, my friend? MEDICARE!
If you want to live in a country with a weak government that doesn't get in your 'hair', why not move to Afghanistan? Why do you conservatives keep trying to make America into a third world country? If that's the sort off thing you like, there are plenty of places like that that already exist for you to move to. Stop trying to destroy America and stop trying to obstruct Americans' efforts to improve their country.
Conservatives? Improve our country? Who is spending us into mountains of debt now? I disagreed with all the Republican spending but this President is just spending crazy!
No, I think you complaining about corporate regulations very likely makes you seriously wrong. This is the mantra of the neocons for the last four decades. We let them run their little experiment and see what happens...
From my perspective, the finance, insurance, energy and telecommunications corporations can be wrapped in a straight jacket of regulations and still be under-regulated.
Deregulation has done NOTHING for us so far except open the doors to disaster. Your argument is invalid.
Oh, thanks for telling me. My argument is invalid because you said so. When was our "little experiment"? When did ALL regulation cease? I must have missed the announcement!
Regulation is a wonderful thing when used with a little common sense. Ever gone to a closing on a mortgage? Remember all those papers you signed that were required by regulations? Regulation is what caused many of our problems. Loans being made to those who could not repay because they were an minority.
Speak for yourself. You don't know what all Americans want. Everyone that I know wants a single payer plan right now, but are willing to settle for a strong public option for the time being. We know that private insurance will eventually be driven from the marketplace then because, let's face it, they suck and could never compete with "Medicare for Everyone".
Now it's our turn. Each of us needs to make contributions to one or more of the Senators who have backed the Bennet letter, then let those that HAVE YET to sign on know we are watching.
One by one they will get the message, and wake up to the fact that the American people are tired of being treated like serfs.
So fantastic! The democrats are as obtuse as the republicans were in the early 90's....Thank god they brought this back up...We were losing momentum....
Anyone who is interested in the Public Option-read the responses to Paul Krugman's article in the New York Times Feb. 19. Wonderful letters, showing just why the Public Option is the way to go.
18 Senators that stood for Melanie Shouse, and future generations of Americans who will no longer have to face the same fate as she: Poverty should not have the power to cause someone to die from the lack of the ability to pay for medically necessary tests, treatments, and cures.
Kieth Obermann, kiss my ass!!!
bovestrian 1 year ago
I am a doctor. I am so public option. Get big business (insurance) out of medical care.
xiomera7 2 years ago 2
Private insurance companies are paying millions of dollars every month to shareholders and overpaid CEOs. I work in healthcare and these organizations are full of overpaid management and very inefficient when it comes to actually delivering care to people. I can't see how public healthcare could POSSIBLY be any worse.
In other countries where they have public health care it's much more efficient and the money goes to actually providing health care, not profits.
prhiannon 2 years ago 2
So, eat the old. But we have more than five trillion to bail out the banks, wall street, Insurance giants, and that's sustainable?
Flashistic 2 years ago
Neither Republicans OR democrats will fix the healthcare problem, but they can certainly make it worse.
Doctors, hospitals and patients, working in a free market without Gov interference - can fix it.
For more on this watch this video: /watch?v=rJ8SkS0kOe8
imre1000 2 years ago
@imre1000 it is "neither nor" or "either or" not neither or. Go back to school, learn the English language; then lecture us on what our govt. can or cannot do.
TheUrbanRevolution 2 years ago
it's my 2nd language...
what do you think of the video?
imre1000 2 years ago
Comment removed
pr0t0color 2 years ago
Comment removed
pr0t0color 2 years ago
If people think a Public Option is government plan to takeover the health industry and destroy other businesses then the same people should ask the government to shutdown the US Postal Services. People can start paying $10 to have a birthday card and bill payments sent via UPS and other private carriers.
Par5Birdie 2 years ago 3
The Post Office is dying a slow and certain death.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - that's from disruptive technology and has nothing to do about the effectiveness of their business. If they want to compete on that level they would have to become a yahoo and post office put together.
TheUrbanRevolution 2 years ago
Are they losing money? That's because fewer and fewer people use their services. At some point, you need to face the fact that they are obsolete.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Comment removed
pr0t0color 2 years ago
Clinton enforced the fair housing laws, Fannie and Freddie bought up one bad loan after another - it was touted as a great success of the Clinton adm; disproportionate growth in minority home ownership, (Great Housing Boom of the 90s). Dodd, Frank, Waxman deregulated financial derivatives (CDR) enabling AIG, Countywide etc. Bush let them; he spends like a drunken lib. Subprime mortgages detonated the financial meltdown. The republican congress was called "The Do Nothing Congress" remember?
hellotommy 2 years ago
It's all relative, credit default swaps (CDSs) DEREGULATION by The Chair & members of the Senate Banking Committee enabled Financials like Countrywide to corrupt with progs like "FOA". A crisis driven by reckless, careless, unscrupulous actors in the mortgage lending ind. and AIG misrepresenting underwriting standards of loans creating the massive number of defaults in mortgage loans. Add House Chair Barney objecting to tighter regulation of Fannie & Freddie, GOV intrusion. CRA was the fuse.
hellotommy 2 years ago
Americans would rather be unfree and equal, than free and unequal.- Alexis de Toqueville, 1835. Plus ca change.....
385Mercedes 2 years ago
John Kerry gave the 2004 election to that little fucker Bush and his Dad's gang.
electric789 2 years ago
Wow, so many right wingers here spreading their falsehoods. You guys like it here? I wonder how many of you are paid to be here. Scary, the people pushing their own agenda, isn't it?
The thing I haven't heard yet is whether this is going to include a mandate. The Democrats have shown themselves to be as evil as the Republicans of late - mandates and fines for people who didn't buy insurance were the one thing both sides were in agreement on. I'm still nervous about what's coming.
TheGiantRobot 2 years ago
I thought the public options would be impossible to pass through the reconciliation process. I thought is was only for budget items (raise/cut taxes, fund miilitary, ect). Is this possible or just politics?
TmanWdaPlan 2 years ago
I think even tyhe wack out Progressives will agree.
The world will be a better place when Olberman commits suicide.
superdoglick 2 years ago
CommonSenseJoe... somehow I don't believe that... more like FoxNewsSenseJoe... maybe if you actually informed yourself and weren't just a tool for the Right Wing(NUTS) you would understand why the majority of Americans want health care. Then if you were really studious you could look at why America is falling apart and you may find the red herring... DEREGULATION!
hirohyoto 2 years ago
the Majority of Americans don't want to be Forced to buy insurance (Regulated) under penalty of fines.
Regulations forced the banks to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back.
davidpark68 2 years ago 2
I like how you justify the first statement with the second... but how did regulations "force" banks to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back?
hirohyoto 2 years ago
What Caused Our Economic Crisis?
watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4
davidpark68 2 years ago
Community Reinvestment Act
davidpark68 2 years ago
@davidpark68
Ridiculous. The areas where most mortgages failed have been in middle-class to upper middle-class neighborhoods, not in poor neighborhoods. The predatory subprime loans were not done to fill a CRA dictate (CRA loans tend to perform correctly), but to fill the need of investors to have high-yield investments.
Giving a mortgage to a poor person isn't inherently irresponsible. If the mortgage is small and in proportion with the borrower's ability to pay, it's OK.
sival 2 years ago
The Poor are not confined to the poor neighborhoods (nor should they be).
"The law emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution. An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching.
davidpark68 2 years ago
The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA"
the law does not mandate that a bank comply, only that if it doesn't it wont be able to expand or merge Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 "increased public oversight of the process. It required the agencies to issue CRA ratings publicly and do written performance evaluations using facts and data to support the agencies' conclusions.
davidpark68 2 years ago
It also required a four-tiered CRA examination rating system with performance levels of "Outstanding," "Satisfactory," "Needs to Improve," or "Substantial Noncompliance." These rules increased pressure on banks to make mortgage home loans to inner-city and rural areas."
"FIRREA gives both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae additional responsibility to support mortgages for low- and moderate-income families."
this was a way out for the banks to sell those bad loans to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
davidpark68 2 years ago
"In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933"
it was Clinton, not Bush, that deregulated the financial Industry
davidpark68 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It was the Republicans that wanted to keep these restrictions on Freddy & Fanny
watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A
"Giving a mortgage to a poor person isn't inherently irresponsible. If the mortgage is small and in proportion with the borrower's ability to pay, it's OK"
I agree, but a 20% down Payment should be required to make the borrower take responsibility or take a loss, defaults wouldn't have happened if the borrowers had money in it to lose
davidpark68 2 years ago
here's what should of happened:
no regulation on a bank to make the loan the bank makes a loan based on the borrowers ability to pay it back. they would have used standard lending practices of 20% down & actually Verified the borrowers ability to pay the loan back. there would have been less people taking loans therefore housing prices wouldn't have bubbled (lower housing prices is good for poor people)
davidpark68 2 years ago
this would cause the banks to hold the loans because it is a safe loan that makes them & their banking customers (savers) money. in case of a default, the bank could easily recoup the money by selling the house at a fair market value or even 20% below because of the down payment
davidpark68 2 years ago
Your basic idea that regulations made the banks give bad loans is just plain wrong. It was predatory mortgage companies that popped up and gave bad loans, with no proof of income or assets, that caused the defaults. They did this because investors were asking for mortgage-backed securities, and not because of any regulation, especially not CRA.
These companies lied to people to sell them mortgages they couldn't afford. This is the national tendency of the free market to create bubbles at work.
sival 2 years ago
Wiki is your friend
"regulations made the banks give bad loans is just plain wrong"
regulations made the banks give bad loans is just plain Fact
a search on "Community Reinvestment Act " will show you that.
there's 2 participants in a loan transaction, lender & borrower. don't sign anything you don't understand. people need to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.
davidpark68 2 years ago
The Federal Reserve controls money supply, Inflation & Deflation. it is the Federal Reserve that controls the the Boom & Bust cycle, it is part of a progressive Planned Economy (Along with the Progressive income tax) & has nothing to do with the free market.
there are many Videos on YT that will explain the Federal Reserve
"Money masters" & "Money as debt" are 2 of my faves
davidpark68 2 years ago
Check the Long Depression, that was in the 19th century, before the coming of the Fed. Longer than the Great Depression, if less deep because the economy had a shorter distance to fall. This was in the era of free banking, which had more boom and bust cycles and more "panics" than the era of Keynesian consensus from the end of WWII to the 1980s. That era ended with a deep crisis, but unlike the previous ones, it was caused by real-life economics (oil crisis) and not just by financial bubbles.
sival 2 years ago
I'd much rather live through a Long Depression or boom and bust cycles where I control my money then a Fiat Keynesian system where my money loses Value & I can't do anything about it.
in 1913 the dollar was worth $0.97 when the fed took over, today it's worth $0.03.
if your Interested in Monetary Policy check out the Ludwig von Mises Institute online.
Much of those Boom & Bust cycles had to do with Lending practices (Fractional reserve banking) & Bank Runs.
davidpark68 2 years ago
also the drop in dollar value was due to increases in gold supply. FDR finally found a way to do away with the drop in dollar value caused by Gold supply by stealing the people's Gold. LOL
davidpark68 2 years ago
Austrian economics reject empiricism, believing that when the facts don't fit their theory, the facts are wrong. They are a religion, I don't care for them.
Inflation in a system is much better than stability or worse, deflation. Inflation forces people to invest or spend their money if they want to maintain it. Deflation leads to money being hoarded and kept out of the economy. An arbitrary standard like the gold standard makes no sense, as the value of the standard can also fluctuate wildly.
sival 2 years ago
LOL I'm glad you feel that way
"Federal Reserve needs to cut US Dollar in half over next 14 years"
watch?v=0-ZZFmKFk1s
Hurry up & Spend it while it has Value
Have you seen this - Funny
"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes
watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
davidpark68 2 years ago
just curious, if I print the money & you borrow $100 from me at 1% interest how will you ever pay me back?
you can't
davidpark68 2 years ago
Your from Canada so you should be safe, just don't get caught holding the dollar when the SHTF.
davidpark68 2 years ago
Canada also has a central bank and "fiat" money, as does every country in the world. It just works better that way.
Now, that Americans, both government, private citizens, private companies, all of them, acted irresponsibly and are operating at deficit at every level is not an indictment against the system, such much as against the mentality of Americans in general.
sival 2 years ago
"private citizens acted irresponsibly"
not so, there are a few of us that lived within our means & didn't overextend our credit. problem is that those of us that did will pay for those who didn't through devalued currency. the US has a legal tender law that prevents us from using any other currency other than the dollar. Ron Paul has a Bill in that would change that. also Fiat Currency is against our constitution.
davidpark68 2 years ago
Fiat currency is not against your constitution. It is laughable to argue that the founding fathers were against it when they used it in the War of Independence to fund the war effort.
As to private citizens, go see the data on consumer debt, it is a problem not often discussed, but one that is very important. It's not just about mortgages and subprime lending.
sival 2 years ago
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have PowerTo coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shallcoin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.
Understand that the US constitution is people to government, all rights belong to the people - they give some power to the state - the state gives power to the federal gov
davidpark68 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
states shall not make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.
Congress shall have Power To coin Money & regulate the Value thereof
So congress has the right to coin money of gold & silver
"they used it in the War of Independence to fund the war effort"
American War of Independence (1775-1782)
Constitution was adopted in 1787
Agree !00%
I like to use the debt clock myself
If the dollar wasen't pegged to Oil it would be as worthless as the Zimbabwe dollar
davidpark68 2 years ago
The CRA is decades old, if it did what you claim it does, it would have led to a bubble much earlier. It didn't, because it doesn't lead to banks giving bad loans, it leads to banks giving small mortgages in poorer neighborhoods, mortgage they are wary of and that are therefore generally safe.
It wasn't the poor neighborhoods that burst, it was the middle and upper middle neighborhoods. The CRA only regulates that mortgages be given in poor neighborhoods, not to poor people.
sival 2 years ago
I've already cut & pasted many of the facts on it but in order to get a complete understanding you will need to look it up yourself, follow the links also they give the details of the bills & modifications of the bills. I Use Wiki because Liberals tend to agree that it's unbiased.
Bush had Greenspan lower the interest rates at the fed to encourage borrowing after the dotcom bubble to stimulate the economy
Wiki "Subprime mortgage crisis"
that is probably the most complete, non biased explanation
davidpark68 2 years ago
also this Vids
What Caused Our Economic Crisis?
watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4
The Financial Crisis: Lets Go to the Video Tape...
watch?v=90X74V-hS7U
Barney Frank Caught Lying About Fannie Mae
watch?v=2UZ9l_AxKjA
Peter Schiff : Bubbles Explained! (Part 1/8)
watch?v=mssLkt3iBGM
davidpark68 2 years ago
Not true.
The Clinton Administration fought against repeal of Glass-Steagal. Clinton signed the bill because it had a veto-proof majority.
PerryLogan 2 years ago
Wrong, davidpark68.
Regulations did not force banks to come up with 'creative' loans. The banks did that themselves soas to move freshly built McMansions and strip malls. Why? Because the same banks had extended construction loans to developers to build these places. If the banks didn't help move the new properties, then they would end up eating the construction loans. They were just passing the hot potato.
I know you desperately want to exonerate big business, but it just ain't so.
pr0t0color 2 years ago
"Creative Loans" were banking tools before the housing bubble
ARM mortgages were great for Investors who didn't have the Capitol to Buy the Property & make the Necessary repairs so they could flip it.
What happened to Personal Responsibility? no one forced these people to take these "Creative Loans"
Maybe these people should have been more Responsible with their credit ratings Before they tried to buy a house
I know you desperately want to exonerate, the unknowledgeable but it just ain't so.
davidpark68 2 years ago
@davidpark68 how about the illiterate person in Ohio that put her X on the signature line and believed what the broker told her?
TheUrbanRevolution 2 years ago
Personal Responsibility is taking responsibility for yourself & your actions. if you can't read or can't read Legalese why wouldn't you bring a lawyer or a really smart friend to sign for a loan that's going to be a major part of your life? it's not like your buying an IPod.
davidpark68 2 years ago
I want healthcare too. In fact, I would love a public option, but only if it actually was self-sustaining as the President said it would be. It would be a perfect opportunity to prove whether or not the government could compete with private insurance companies. If the public option had operate solely on the premiums paid by the public, I would support it and might even sign up.
America is failing apart because people falsely believe government can fix everything for them. Government can't.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago 2
I wish they would use what they themselves labeled the "nucleur option".
Not only will it cause a even more powerful backlash in middle America. It would ensure the removal of more establishment politicians in favor of small government "constitutionalists".
There are more than 20 states in the Union who have threatened to nullify Obamacare, even if it did pass.
The game is over. America is saying NO to socialism. Get over it.
fuzzybekool 2 years ago 2
"No we can't! No we can't! No we can't!"
What have you Republicants done for US lately? Honestly now, have you done anything in living memory to make America a better place?
Your negativism and sabotage is getting old.
BTW, the "Public Option" is referred to as the "nuclear option" because if it does pass, it will become untouchable, like Medicare, and it will blow away the "Party of No" and anyone who defined themselves by opposing it.
pr0t0color 2 years ago 2
What makes you think the public option would be better than what we have now?
What the Democrats have done is set this country on a course of self-destruction. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are no longer financially viable.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago 2
I am sure that the Repugs would try their hardest to sabotage the public option, so it won't be as good as it could be. However, I've lived in countries with something like "Medicare for Anyone" and it is much better (and cheaper) than what the US has.
"Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are no longer financially viable. " Sure, thanks to vandalism by Repulbicans, there are some problems. Anyway, you grossly overstate the problems being experienced by these great American institutions.
pr0t0color 2 years ago
Medicare was a financial mess from the FIRST year it was enacted. It has always cost more than projected. That is why they have cut the reimbursements to providers. Medicaid is a joke now because many providers will not even accept it. Social Security had some merit but it has been used to provide payments to parents of children with disabilities. Children who never worked a day in their lives. Alcoholism is considered a disability under SSI. Some great American institutions!
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe
When has a Repug ever run a (successful) campaign based on eliminating or privatizing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? Never. Of course, the neocons would like nothing better than to get rid of these programs but couldn't win an election if they were honest with the electorate. As a result, they lie to the voters about their intentions then sabotage these programs to the best of their ability in back room deals so that idiots like you can claim the programs need to go.
pr0t0color 2 years ago 2
So you are admitting that President Obama is lying. Good, we are making progress.
President Bush tried to reform Social Security. He put an honest proposal on the table and the Democrats with their media accomplices totally lied about it.
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are doomed programs. They will be bankrupt very soon and then what will happen?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe
You need to pay attention... tough for someone who has to tout their own "Common Sense", but still possible.
Republicants want to destroy Medicare and SS. They will all tell you so in private if you pretend to be a libertarian around them. They deny this in public, however. So who is lying?
Republicants try to divert monies for these programs to big business in the back room, but then complain about waste and corruption in public. Again, who is lying?
Please pay attention.
pr0t0color 2 years ago 3
Republicans do not want to destroy Medicare and Social Security. THEY WANT TO FIX THEM! What part about "going broke" don't you understand. They are unsustainable. This whole healthcare takeover is designed to cover up the Medicare and Medicaid collapse. The Democrats keep more benefits to more and more people who do not pay for them. The rest of us cannot continue to fund S.S. for number of people on the program. Maybe you should pay attention.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
what they don't tell you is the reason it is going broke is that they keep taking money out of it for fighting wars and large tax breaks for the super rich. They do not want to fix it at all, don't try to feed people that bullshit.
Teremei 2 years ago 2
NO, what you fail to realize is that these programs are growing in COST to unsustainable levels. We are now giving SSI to children who have never worked a day in their lives. There are more and more older people and less people working to support the system. The healthcare grab was to cover up this fact. Over 50% of Americans are already on government insurance now, and it is killing the system.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe by fixing you mean privatizing right? So the folks who would have retired say in... December 2008 would have just been SOL.
TheUrbanRevolution 2 years ago
They have to be fixed or they will go broke. That is a fact. We must either raise the taxes or cut the benefits.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe or cut the cost of delivering those benefits... which is kind of the whole point of the public option.
uvcrwjjfdsjew 2 years ago
I favor a public option under certain conditions. The problem is I don't trust the President or the Democrats when they talk about a public option.
At one time the President said he favored a public option that was NOT tax payer subsidized and would operate solely on the premiums paid by those in the plan. If that kind of plan was proposed today, I would support it. I do not believe that the government can run an insurance business any better than the private sector.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
This is going to kill votes for them in November
jimisback 2 years ago 2
I'm thinking that too. If the Democrats show some fortitude and force the public option through along strict party lines, it will destroy the Republicants as a viable party in the US for the foreseeable future.
What's got Dems down in polls is their apparent spinelessness and desperate need to appease obstructionist Repugs. If they start acting like the party with the majority, their fortunes will improve. They weren't voted in to roll over and die at the first opportunity, after all.
pr0t0color 2 years ago
No, I think they are out of touch with the American people.
jimisback 2 years ago
You mean that I'm out of touch with the "real Americans" that Sarah Palin speaks of? Of course, you are right. Who would want to be in touch with them? You might catch something.
If, on the other hand, you mean that I am out of touch with the REAL real Americans, the ones that have most of their teeth, don't live in dilapidated trailers in the Deep South and don't have gun racks in the back windows of their rusty pickup trucks, then perhaps it is you that is out of touch.
pr0t0color 2 years ago
What took them so long? It's about time we got back to talking about the public option. I say we reconcile those Republican vipers back into the 12th century B.C. They are the most hateful bunch of venomous snakes on the planet and have made life miserable for the last forty years. At last the Democrats are showing some much needed backbone.
Republicans do nothing but set up road blocks. They shout that old "tax and spend" crap about every good idea, meanwhile they bankrupt the country.
fannybritann 2 years ago 2
I have been a registered nurse with the VA since 1985. I am totally for government provided healthcare. The VA just keeps getting better and better and has become the first choice provider for the majority of my patients who also have health insurance.
suzenrose 2 years ago
Republicans, watch out because here we come.
MJP1502 2 years ago
Why don't we have a national vote on this neo-nazi health care crap.
Then it will be clear the people of this great Nation, DO NOT want a government run health care system.
All we want is the highly unregulated insurance companies to be reined in.
Change the health care bill to a strictly insurance company bill.
Most people don't know that insurance companies can lose money in the stock market and write it off or raise rates to make up for it. The only businesses in the country that can do so.
tkcomputerservice 2 years ago
It's clear that the unregulated insurance companies WON't be reined in.
Is Medicine a business? Should it be?
That's what Americans are going to have to decide.
385Mercedes 2 years ago 2
Where do you live that insurance companies are "unregulated"?
The problem is and has always been the GOVERNMENT's involvement in healthcare.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe
You related to the plumber's helper? Sound's like it.
You're complaining about the government's involvement in Medicare, right?
You ignorant conservative freaks are so profoundly stupid that it hurts.
Yeah, health insurance businesses are regulated... about as much as financial institutions. Thank you Republicant vandals for decades of "improving" America through deregulation. `Course, you clowns are too dishonest and cowardly to own what you bought..
pr0t0color 2 years ago
Do you think attacking me makes you right?
Medicare reimburses providers 80% of cost, and Medicaid only 60% of cost. Who do you think pays the difference?
Insurance companies have plenty of regulations. However this "reform" is not about making regulations better. It is about eliminating private insurance all together. You have to deal with PROVIDERS to lower costs, not the insurance companies.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Sure, deall with the providers... I am all for that as well. In the meantime, let's eliminate the middlemen. What value do private insurance companies add to the process of health care? What do they cost us?
"None", and "A lot" are the respective answers you're looking for.
So why have them involved? "Because that's the way we've done it for the last few decades" is not good enough.
pr0t0color 2 years ago
How we deal with the government? Private insurance companies provide a service to the consumer. If you don't want the service, don't become a customer. Health insurance companies make a 4% profit. If liberals think that is outrageous, then I suggest all these rich liberal one the Kerrys and such, start a health insurance company to compete. If they think there is such big money being made, they can prove it with their own money.
Who first invented health insurance, my friend? MEDICARE!
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
I'm not your friend, Joe-the-plumbers-helper.
If you want to live in a country with a weak government that doesn't get in your 'hair', why not move to Afghanistan? Why do you conservatives keep trying to make America into a third world country? If that's the sort off thing you like, there are plenty of places like that that already exist for you to move to. Stop trying to destroy America and stop trying to obstruct Americans' efforts to improve their country.
pr0t0color 2 years ago
Conservatives? Improve our country? Who is spending us into mountains of debt now? I disagreed with all the Republican spending but this President is just spending crazy!
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
No, I think you complaining about corporate regulations very likely makes you seriously wrong. This is the mantra of the neocons for the last four decades. We let them run their little experiment and see what happens...
From my perspective, the finance, insurance, energy and telecommunications corporations can be wrapped in a straight jacket of regulations and still be under-regulated.
Deregulation has done NOTHING for us so far except open the doors to disaster. Your argument is invalid.
pr0t0color 2 years ago
Oh, thanks for telling me. My argument is invalid because you said so. When was our "little experiment"? When did ALL regulation cease? I must have missed the announcement!
Regulation is a wonderful thing when used with a little common sense. Ever gone to a closing on a mortgage? Remember all those papers you signed that were required by regulations? Regulation is what caused many of our problems. Loans being made to those who could not repay because they were an minority.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@tkcomputerservice
Speak for yourself. You don't know what all Americans want. Everyone that I know wants a single payer plan right now, but are willing to settle for a strong public option for the time being. We know that private insurance will eventually be driven from the marketplace then because, let's face it, they suck and could never compete with "Medicare for Everyone".
pr0t0color 2 years ago
@pr0t0color I thought single payer would be O.K. too.
Until I looked a bit more into it.
Fact is, and has been for some time, insurance companies have unjust abilities that harm this country as a whole.
tkcomputerservice 2 years ago 2
Some Democrats have written a letter. Be still my heart!
PerryLogan 2 years ago
The last I've heard, 20 Senators have signed on.
Now it's our turn. Each of us needs to make contributions to one or more of the Senators who have backed the Bennet letter, then let those that HAVE YET to sign on know we are watching.
One by one they will get the message, and wake up to the fact that the American people are tired of being treated like serfs.
bushputz 2 years ago 4
I've heard it's now 21. The tide is turning, we've got to put the pressure on to make this happen.
385Mercedes 2 years ago 5
So fantastic! The democrats are as obtuse as the republicans were in the early 90's....Thank god they brought this back up...We were losing momentum....
adsense1 2 years ago 2
Democrats never cared about rules anyway. Go ahead and pass a public option. The public will make their judgment on their actions in November.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
No one is capable of going up against Barack Obama.
MJP1502 2 years ago
I am proud of my senators. Let's get this done. We can fix the pickle parts after it's on the books.
1Natick1 2 years ago 2
Anyone who is interested in the Public Option-read the responses to Paul Krugman's article in the New York Times Feb. 19. Wonderful letters, showing just why the Public Option is the way to go.
385Mercedes 2 years ago 3
18 Senators that stood for Melanie Shouse, and future generations of Americans who will no longer have to face the same fate as she: Poverty should not have the power to cause someone to die from the lack of the ability to pay for medically necessary tests, treatments, and cures.
bigbrotherhal9000 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
18 traitors
superdoglick 2 years ago
Comment removed
385Mercedes 2 years ago
Smart, I sure hope you are right!
385Mercedes 2 years ago 3
I predict that after the summit meeting on Feb 25th we will pass a health care bill that includes a public option via the reconcilitation option.
Smartassawhip 2 years ago 13
It's about time, This should have been done last year,, I hope It works out,
gritzschke 2 years ago 6
What makes you think that?
Stillahills 2 years ago
Yep, that's what I see happening too. Obama has to keep his mouth shut until it's over
Fringe111 2 years ago
around and around we go were they stop is on your big toe. Scott (BUG)
believersunderground 2 years ago