Summations Only

Explain what this link claims.You actually believe the CRA caused the bank meltdown?The subprime market was not the driver of the bank meltdown. It has become the scapegoat.Here is an analysis by that socialist organization Bloomberg. As you probably wont go to the link to read the whole piece I will post it all here.

quote:

---

Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

​

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.

​

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).

​

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

​

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. (Barry Ritholtz had an excellent and more comprehensive survey of how Washington contributed to the crisis in this week’s Barron’s.)

​

There’s plenty more good reading on the CRA and the subprime crisis out in the blogosphere. Ellen Seidman, who headed the Office of Thrift Supervision in the late 90s, has written several fact-filled posts about the CRA controversey, including one just last week. University of Oregon professor and economist Mark Thoma has also defended the CRA on his blog. I also learned something from a post back in April by Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which ends with this ditty:

​

quote:

---

It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.

---

---

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?You really should look for information from reputable sources that use real facts and figures. It is best to stay away from the rantings of a libertarian nobody, that uses the writings of a conservative think tank as his evidence.Edited by Theodoric, : punct

But you have no facts to back this up do you.
I see you refuse to look at the actual facts and instead just parrot the propaganda you hear.Show us some evidence to back up this assertion. Not a link that also parrots the same assertion with no evidence. That is why they are called regulations. But there was no regulation that you are asserting.

We're being Poe'd aren't we. No reasonably educated adult could be this wrong about how the economy works. Could they?

More BS from BZ. Romney was raised in Bloomfield Hills, MI. Not really the liberal east is it.Edited by Theodoric, : its Buz not Bus

Well you obviously have basic comprehension issues. Your hatred for Obama(based on what I am not sure) has completely clouded your ability to make reasonable conclusions.Have you even read what he said in context?

But that isn't really what Buz said is it? If Buz wants to make the clarification why dont you let him defend himself instead of you trying to determine what he meant by clairvoyance.Buz's list has been shown to be all BS. Maybe you can support more of his outlandish claims.ABE
Using your criteria Ryan is not from the "mainstream"(wonder how the rest of the country feels about that moniker) midwest.

quote:

---

Ryan later worked for U.S. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas before returned to Wisconsin in 1997, where he worked for a year as a marketing consultant for Ryan Incorporated Central, his relatives' construction company.

---

Source
In 1998 he was elected to congress and has been a denizen of Washington since. I realize he lives parttime in WI too, but Mitt lives parttime in lots of places besides "liberal" northeast.Edited by Theodoric, : More info

That sir is the rub. Look at the amount of taxes they pay. Hardly adequate for a lot of the larger corporations considering the burden that they put on infrastructure, social services and other things that fall under government purview.

Please show where this was said. Please show where the President is planning on raising taxes on small business people.I think the whole definition of small business needs to be determined if the small business argument . according to SBA

quote:

---

Manufacturing: Maximum number of employees may range from 500 to 1500, depending on the type of product manufactured;
Wholesaling: Maximum number of employees may range from 100 to 500 depending on the particular product being provided;
Services: Annual receipts may not exceed $2.5 to $21.5 million, depending on the particular service being provided;
Retailing: Annual receipts may not exceed $5.0 to $21.0 million, depending on the particular product being provided;
General and Heavy Construction: General construction annual receipts may not exceed $13.5 to $17 million, depending on the type of construction;
Special Trade Construction: Annual receipts may not exceed $7 million; and
Agriculture: Annual receipts may not exceed $0.5 to $9.0 million, depending on the agricultural product.

---

Some of those are quite large concerns. If a small business owner is making huge amounts of money then maybe he should pay more in taxes. This whole poor small business argument is just a right wing canard.Lets look at more figures. From people that actually looked at actual numbers.

quote:

---

Supporters of various tax benefits for high-income households often claim that failure to maintain them would have an undue effect on many small businesses. But even assuming a broad definition of small business, these claims are very often exaggerated or false.

​

Only 1.9 percent of taxpayers with small-business income face either of the top two income tax rates. Thus, allowing the 2001 reductions in these rates to expire as scheduled in 2010 would not affect most small-business owners. Strengthening the Earned Income Tax Credit could help more than seven times as many small businesses as extending the reductions in the top rates.

​

Claims that the estate tax must be largely or entirely eliminated to protect small businesses are misleading as well. According to the Tax Policy Center, in 2009 only 0.003 percent of all estates that is, the estates of three out of every 100,000 people who die this year will be small business estates that owe any estate tax.

​

The typical small business is not a wealthy hedge fund. Closing a lucrative tax loophole used by hedge fund managers would have no effect on mom and pop businesses.

---

Source

I did and then I provided evidence. You might want to try some to support your unevidenced assertions. Since you are having some trouble let me spell it out.
Most small business people do not make a lot of income. The vast majority do not fall in to the tiers that their taxes would be increased by an proposal of Obama or the democrats.
You see this is not an unevidenced assertion HMM?? Because it is true. From that you leap to the conclusion that he wants small business people to pay more in taxes. Maybe you should o research on what he proposes for taxes and what small business owners make in income. Is this rhetorical question day? Either make your point or not. Do you have a point to make on this so I can respond?

Wow. What a bizarre interpretation. Maybe he was trying to remind people that we are a society and we do not live in a vacuum. He is expressing solid time tested free market values. The views expressed are the core of free market theory developed by Adam Smith. Conservatives and libertarians really should see what Smith wrote before they use him as their standard bearer.I do not think he was implying this at all. If you inferred that it is your issue not his or anyone elses.Here are his words.

quote:

---

"Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

​

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

---

His own words. Sorry I don't feel I should put them in my own words. Would kind of defeat the purpose.Now where in there do you see him implying that small business people are not paying enough taxes?

None of the anti-Obama arguments have seemed to stand up to scrutiny.The utter lack of an argument on the right is summed by the outlandish attempts to take Obama's "you didn't" speech and try to turn it into some sort of fifth column attack on small business people. Then when they can show no where in the text does he say what they claim, then we are supposed to accept the argument that there is some sort of secret message in his tone and body language. The argument has gone from the ridiculous to the more ridiculous. To accept this argument we would have to accept that Barack Obama is a moron. Why would he make an attack upon a significant portion of the electorate?Yeah Obama is mocking people who started their own business. Right.The arguments have gotten silly. Really? Where does he say that? Where does he say people should not take credit for their endeavors? Where does he say that everyone is dependent on the government? Are all teachers evil cause he mentioned them? Really? And you have the evidence for this. Just because Donald Trump says something doesn't make it true.Will Obama lose? Hell if I know. But the reasons put forth by the rightwing are not likely to be the reason if he loses. The arguments put forth are based on spin and lies. Yes outright lies.Took $700 billion from Medicare. Lie.
No one built there own business. Lie.
Not natural born US citizen. Lie.
Obama is a despot. Lie.Romney has few if any positives going into the home stretch. All he has is attacks. He is in high dudgeon whenever his record as a business man, governor or Olympics guy is brought up or questioned. He refuses to outline his economic plan. He and Mr. Ryan claim to have some sort of magical way to fix the economy but refuse to tell us until after the election. Right.Supply side economics doesn't work. We have 30 years of it to prove that. How far do we cut taxes on the rich and corporations before this miraculous prosperity for all begins? Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Mitt Romney and Donald Trump are not job creators. Taxing them more will not slow job creation, it will actually create jobs.When corporations and extremely wealthy people are taxed more that tend to invest more in their companies. Instead of sending money to the government there is more incentive to plow it back into the company. That way more jobs are created and more innovation happens instead of businesses stagnating or getting raped for short term gains.