Woodwork Post

Tom Veatch · by **Tom Veatch** on Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:50 pm

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:51:34 -0400, t wrote:
>...
>The CRA requires that each depository institution's record in helping
>meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated
>periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an
>institution's application for deposit facilities.
>...

That sounds like it could be a mighty big stick!

Can't help but wonder: "evaluated" by whom, against what criteria, and
what penalties accrue if those evaluators decide the institution falls
short of the criteria. I can well imagine institution officers being
intimidated by that. Perhaps being intimidated even to the point of
making risky loans.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Tim Daneliuk · by **Tim Daneliuk** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:48 am

Greg O wrote:
> "Charlie Self" wrote in message
> news:139c05ea-010d-49b4-9c8c-e2093d944d56@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> It's not so much a revelation as *. The problems with subprime
>> were not caused by the borrowers aimed at by Carter, but by lenders
>> who over-valued houses and allowed people who obviously didn't have
>> the means to buy immense houses. Almost wrote homes, but damned few of
>> those places are homes or ever will be. The original act was aimed at
>> allowing poorer borrowers a shot at the market. What happened was that
>> lenders saw far more money in letting better off, but not better off
>> enough, borrowers to grab mortgages beyond their means. Short term
>> profits were immense. Now, you and I get to pay for that.
>
>> It really has little to do with political parties. There is sufficient
>> shame and blame to go around.
>
> I got to see this first hand when we refinanced our home five years ago.
> Without going into great detail, the bank suggested we should sell our
> home and buy one that was worth three times the one we are in. (going
> off there appraisal at the time) Our bank sold our loan immediately to
> WaMu. Now MAYBE, (big maybe!), I could afford to pay the loan, but I
> know I could not afford to do anything else until the note was paid off!
> I wonder how many people got sucked into this fiasco, apparently quite a
> few!
> Greg

But you didn't. And I didn't (having much the same experience as you
describe). In fact most everyone I know didn't. Yet, somehow, this
whole fiasco is being sold as the "banks' problem". It is nonsense.
Each of us are adults and should reasonably be expected to be responsible
for our own selves and financial decisions. The current mentality in
this country is analogous to blaming the bartender that your uncle's
a drunk...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk · by **Tim Daneliuk** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:46 am

Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
>> But you didn't. And I didn't (having much the same experience as you
>> describe). In fact most everyone I know didn't. Yet, somehow, this
>> whole fiasco is being sold as the "banks' problem". It is nonsense.
>
> Still picking on the poor eh Tim? As representatives of the stockholders,

No. I am defending property rights for those who actually earned
said property.

> they *are* responsible for investing the stockholder's money responsibly. If
> the banks are too greedy for trying to maximize their profits by not being a
> little more careful who they lend money to, then at the very least they
> share equal blame for losing it. When it comes to survival, what do you

Ordinarily you would be entirely right. And even in this circumstance,
there is no question the banks bear some culpability. But tell me, when a
bank is *forced - by law* to make lousy loans so that you and yours
can feel good about Very Noble Do-Gooding (with Other People's Money,
it goes without saying), how can you begin to blame the bank? It's
pure hypocrisy.

> think is going to happen? People will borrow money wherever they can get it.
> You'd do it if you were broke. You might even do it under the delusion that
> you *would* pay it back. Deluding oneself if one of the easiest things to

I've been broke - well at least very, very poor. Not once did I resort
to lying, cheating, and stealing (the three pillars of progressive/liberal
politics) to remediate that condition. I just got a job - several at a
time in some cases.

> do, obviously for banks tool. *, if the money institutions think someone
> is responsible enough to be a credit risk, then the blame is there's for
> handing it out to anyone and everyone.
>
> Yeah, yeah, let's here your diatribe.

I want *everyone* to be held accountable for their actions, you want to
excuse the people you feel sorry for and place a disproportionate
amount of the blame on the people you don't like.

You think poverty is a prima facia "Get Out Of Moral Responsibility Free"
card. I think poverty is no excuse for unethical behavior.

You think it's OK for the poor to take what is not theirs, but it's not
OK for those of means to make more money. I think they should both be held
to a common standard.

IOW, I defend decency, honesty, and integrity. You defend theft, fraud,
and class war.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale · by **Upscale** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:04 am

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
> But you didn't. And I didn't (having much the same experience as you
> describe). In fact most everyone I know didn't. Yet, somehow, this
> whole fiasco is being sold as the "banks' problem". It is nonsense.

Still picking on the poor eh Tim? As representatives of the stockholders,
they *are* responsible for investing the stockholder's money responsibly. If
the banks are too greedy for trying to maximize their profits by not being a
little more careful who they lend money to, then at the very least they
share equal blame for losing it. When it comes to survival, what do you
think is going to happen? People will borrow money wherever they can get it.
You'd do it if you were broke. You might even do it under the delusion that
you *would* pay it back. Deluding oneself if one of the easiest things to
do, obviously for banks tool. *, if the money institutions think someone
is responsible enough to be a credit risk, then the blame is there's for
handing it out to anyone and everyone.

Yeah, yeah, let's here your diatribe.

Tim Daneliuk · by **Tim Daneliuk** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:07 am

Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
>> I think poverty is no excuse for unethical behavior.
>
> Your problem is that you wouldn't know what's ethical if it came up and bit
> you on the * after introducing itself to you.
>
>> You think it's OK for the poor to take what is not theirs, but it's not
>
> And the sentence above backs up you not understanding what's ethical and
> what's not.
>
>> IOW, I defend decency, honesty, and integrity. You defend theft, fraud,
>> and class war.
>
> You defend what it's like to be a braggart without backing it up. Not once
> in all your ranting have you ever proved any of your claims. Your constant
> response is that you don't have to.
>
> Yup. In your opinion I'm a thieving, conniving, con artist. But if that's
> so, then it absolutely thrills me that my collectivist activities are taking
> *your* money. If there's anybody that deserves to be cheated, defrauded or
> stepped on it's you. Enjoy it because I'm laughing all the way to the beer
> store, (oops, I meant the bank).
>
>

Another well-reasoned collectivist response heard from ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale · by **Upscale** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:57 am

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
> I think poverty is no excuse for unethical behavior.

Your problem is that you wouldn't know what's ethical if it came up and bit
you on the * after introducing itself to you.

> You think it's OK for the poor to take what is not theirs, but it's not

And the sentence above backs up you not understanding what's ethical and
what's not.

> IOW, I defend decency, honesty, and integrity. You defend theft, fraud,
> and class war.

You defend what it's like to be a braggart without backing it up. Not once
in all your ranting have you ever proved any of your claims. Your constant
response is that you don't have to.

Yup. In your opinion I'm a thieving, conniving, con artist. But if that's
so, then it absolutely thrills me that my collectivist activities are taking
*your* money. If there's anybody that deserves to be cheated, defrauded or
stepped on it's you. Enjoy it because I'm laughing all the way to the beer
store, (oops, I meant the bank).

Robatoy · by **Robatoy** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:17 am

On Oct 12, 11:00 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 6:36 pm, "cm" wrote:
> >> You mean like "The Keating Five"? Perhaps you mean someone like Ken
> >> Lay? Maybe Bebe Rebozo?
>
> >> McCain's friends don't hate whites, the USA, nor have they been involved in
> >> any bombings within the USA.
>
> > Obama is not 'friends' with Ayers. He sat on a board with Ayers..a
> > board which was put together by a republican. Stop perpetuating the
> > lies. Get the facts. (Obama was 8 years old at the time of the
> > bombings...so what are you saying? )
>
> Utter nonsense. Ayers domestic terrorism was well documented by
> the time Obama ascended to power.
> This did not stop Obama from
> making nice with Ayers.

Naaaa.. Obama just 'reached across the isle'

>They are both political pondscum.

I can't/won't disagree with that.

This is what the McCain goons spread around as gospel:
“Ayers and Obama ran a radical education foundation, together.”

The truth is:

The foundation they are referring to is the Chicago Annenberg
Challenge (CAC), set up in the early 1990’s with funding from the
Annenberg Foundation to reform public schools. Walter Annenberg is a
well-known philanthropist and conservative Republican.

Utter nonsense, eh?

Tim Daneliuk · by **Tim Daneliuk** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:52 am

Robatoy wrote:
> On Oct 12, 11:00 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 6:36 pm, "cm" wrote:
>>>> You mean like "The Keating Five"? Perhaps you mean someone like Ken
>>>> Lay? Maybe Bebe Rebozo?
>>>> McCain's friends don't hate whites, the USA, nor have they been involved in
>>>> any bombings within the USA.
>>> Obama is not 'friends' with Ayers. He sat on a board with Ayers..a
>>> board which was put together by a republican. Stop perpetuating the
>>> lies. Get the facts. (Obama was 8 years old at the time of the
>>> bombings...so what are you saying? )
>> Utter nonsense. Ayers domestic terrorism was well documented by
>> the time Obama ascended to power.
>> This did not stop Obama from
>> making nice with Ayers.
>
> Naaaa.. Obama just 'reached across the isle'
>
>> They are both political pondscum.
>
> I can't/won't disagree with that.
>
> This is what the McCain goons spread around as gospel:
> “Ayers and Obama ran a radical education foundation, together.”
>
> The truth is:
>
> The foundation they are referring to is the Chicago Annenberg
> Challenge (CAC), set up in the early 1990’s with funding from the
> Annenberg Foundation to reform public schools. Walter Annenberg is a
> well-known philanthropist and conservative Republican.
>
> Utter nonsense, eh?

True as far as it goes, but I think you're missing the point. The
issue isn't just that St. Barak and Bill The Mad Bomber served on the
same board. The issue is *how* they spent the money. Stanley Kurtz
finally got the records pried open about 6 weeks ago as regards to
just how the CAC money got spent. (He had to threaten legal action to
get access to those records.) It's pretty horrific. Obama and Ayers
together saw to it that this money meant for education reform got
funneled into programs that amount to a madrassas for the radical
left. e.g., Science programs did not get funded but programs concerning
ethnic identity did get funded. Oh, and guess whose personal education
programs received significant funds? Hint: Bomber Boy.

What people who do not live here in metro Chicago cannot see (because
the Obama-worshiping media won't expose it) is that there is a
significant radical/Marxist movement within the urban/black
leadership:

Pfleger/Wright - The religious/theological arm
Ayers - The educational arm
Obama - The political arm

Obama isn't some bystander to this - he is *integrally* involved
in, a part of-, and supporter of-, and a pillar of one of the
most vile radical/Marxist cultural movements in the country.
He is not an agent for change. He is the American equivalent
of Hugo Chavez - more palatable certainly, a better speaker,
a better dresser, but essentially of the same cloth holding
common cause on the following beliefs:

1) The underclass are essentially victims through no fault of
their own and have been exploited by the wealthy.

2) The middle class has been exploited by the wealthy and led astray
by dreams of wealth.

3) The wealthy got that way dishonestly and must be punished (unless
they are the wealthy that support liberal progressive Marxism).

4) Government is the answer to any and all significant social,
cultural, and political problems.

5) We must all sacrifice in the name of the "common good", by force
of government as necessary to ensure the appropriate level of
sacrifice.

6) The US has done far more evil than good and should both be
punished and required to make atonement to the rest of the world.

The fact that all these ideas are flatly wrong and entirely wrong
doesn't keep the Ayers-Wright-Obama Axis Of Evil Ideas from being
flogged regularly, first here, and now around the country.

This guy is a menace to our future...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Robatoy · by **Robatoy** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:54 am

On Oct 13, 1:52 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote

> >Robatoy wrote:

> > Utter nonsense, eh?
>
> True as far as it goes, but I think you're missing the point.

Oh, points you are now admitting into evidence? Naughty, naughty,
Tim

> The issue isn't just that St. Barak and Bill The Mad Bomber served on the
> same board.

Nothing like a little nicknaming to belittle the opponents, eh?

> The issue is *how* they spent the money. Stanley Kurtz
> finally got the records pried open about 6 weeks ago as regards to
> just how the CAC money got spent. (He had to threaten legal action to
> get access to those records.)

>It's pretty horrific.

Noooo, Tim.... YOU find it horriffic

>Obama and Ayers
> together saw to it that this money meant for education reform got
> funneled into programs that amount to a madrassas for the radical
> left.

Ahhhh.. MADRASSAS.. no less... nothing like injecting a little
(implied of course..no balls for straight out accusations, eh?) filth
implying that Obama is a muslim, eh? Tim, you just blew any respect I
had for you and some of your views.

That is very disappointing. Your hidden agenda just reared its ugly
little head. Shame on you.

by T on Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:49 pm

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:03:58 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

>t wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:08:45 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self
>> wrote:
>>> It's not so much a revelation as *. The problems with subprime
>>> were not caused by the borrowers aimed at by Carter, but by lenders
>>> who over-valued houses and allowed people who obviously didn't have
>>> the means to buy immense houses. Almost wrote homes, but damned few of
>>> those places are homes or ever will be. The original act was aimed at
>>> allowing poorer borrowers a shot at the market. What happened was that
>>> lenders saw far more money in letting better off, but not better off
>>> enough, borrowers to grab mortgages beyond their means. Short term
>>> profits were immense. Now, you and I get to pay for that.
>>>
>>> It really has little to do with political parties. There is sufficient
>>> shame and blame to go around.
>>
>>
>> Yes. The original intent of the Carter era legislation was an
>> honorable one. It was aimed directly at the process of "Redlining"
>
>No it wasn't. It is based on theft to move money from those who
>are productive to those who are not. It is immoral.

Do you even know what "Redlining" was about and how pernicious it was?
>
>> that was prevalent at the time and which excluded housing purchases in
>> depressed areas without regard to the borrower's qualifications.
>
>Redlining was a very reasonable process that prevented people who
>were incapable of repaying a loan from ever being offered one.

You demonstrate your Fascist tendencies. This is interesting, given
your background.
>
>>
>> According to the Federal Reserve website the lending institutions were
>> specifically precluded from making unsafe loans:
>>
>> "The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository
>> institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which
>> they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods,
>> consistent with safe and sound operations. It was enacted by the
>> Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulation BB
>> (12 CFR 228). The regulation was substantially revised in May 1995,
>> and was most recently amended in August 2005.
>> Evaluation of CRA Performance
>> The CRA requires that each depository institution's record in helping
>> meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated
>> periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an
>> institution's application for deposit facilities.
>>
>> Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific
>> criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions.
>> Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should
>> accommodate an institution's individual circumstances. Nor does the
>> law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their
>> safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's
>> CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner."
>>
>> http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/
>>
>>
>> It is typical of the current adversarial environment that reality is
>> not merely ignored but is vociferously denied.
>
>It is typical of today's politically correct rewriting of history to
>ignore the fact that the CRA - as ammended by Clinton is one of the (but not
>the entire) reasons we are in trouble economically in the West.

Read more and try to understand more. In a more general sense, take
your * whipping and go home.

You responded poorly to the message in general and you ignored those
areas that did not fit your view.

A shabby performance, sir.

>>
>>
>> tom watson

Woodwork Post

OOTT://In case it is important to you.

Re: OOTT://In case it is important to you.

Re: OOTT://In case it is important to you.

Re: OOTT://In case it is important to you.

Re: OOTT://In case it is important to you.

Re: OOTT://In case it is important to you.

Re: OOTT://In case it is important to you.

Re: OOTT://In case it is important to you.

Re: OOTT://In case it is important to you.

Re: OOTT://In case it is important to you.

Re: OOTT://In case it is important to you.

Who is online