Thread: If Canada did it why cant we?

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Fishjoel,

as i noted, the CRA exists today as it always had...though its not causin' any particular financial havoc today. what has changed, i wonder...fer its not the CRA.

thats because 'twas not the CRA that forced banks to make all these ruinous loans. hell them banks couldn't make them loans fast enough to satisfy thar shareholders, mate.

'twas the avarice and short sightedness in pursuit 'o riches that caused these loans to have been approved by banks...not the CRA.

- MeadHallPirate

90% of every failed liberal program is still around....What the hell do you think we mean by cutting spending?

Originally Posted by thanatos144

War profiteering? Have you seen our defense debt? Oh I forgot in Europe they make war with flowers and rainbows. As for your ruthless foreign policy that is call not taking it up the ass or surrendering at the first smell of danger.

That's what you call it. Anyway, I was addressing your post, so offering a theory as to how "the US became the most powerful country in the world in such a short time", that obviously doesn't apply now.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

That's what you call it. Anyway, I was addressing your post, so offering a theory as to how "the US became the most powerful country in the world in such a short time", that obviously doesn't apply now.

I am just saying your wrong. We were smart and strong. Freedom made us the strongest country.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

90% of every failed liberal program is still around...

*grins at Thanatos144...*

hail me hearty!

i don't know if them programs be failed, thats open to interpretation.

still, its beyond dispute that conservatives have in many cases grown these programs with great glee and furor. Medicaid part D, that colossal GOP creation, comes to mind.

in some cases, programs commonly thought to be "liberal" were created by conservatives, too.

in any case, i agree with the general gist 'o yer thread, mate.

american ought to heed our Canadian neighbors to the north and try to emulate thar methods 'o governance. on this point, it seems most 'o USPO be united in this opinion.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

*grins at Thanatos144...*

hail me hearty!

i don't know if them programs be failed, thats open to interpretation.

still, its beyond dispute that conservatives have in many cases grown these programs with great glee and furor. Medicaid part D, that colossal GOP creation, comes to mind.

in some cases, programs commonly thought to be "liberal" were created by conservatives, too.

in any case, i agree with the general gist 'o yer thread, mate.

american ought to heed our Canadian neighbors to the north and try to emulate thar methods 'o governance. on this point, it seems most 'o USPO be united in this opinion.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

The they did it too argument is weak. Who cares who broke it just fix it.

Originally Posted by FearandLoathing

I don't know where this myth of banks being "forced" to write sub prime loans came from. The lessening of restrictions came about as a result of intense lobbying over decades.

Please have a look at the documentary "Inside Job."

If Wikipedia can be trusted:

The Community Reinvestment Act is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.

The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation. 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

Bill Clinton signed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1995 (CRA1995) in to law which streamlined the regulatory requirements for CRA loans, allowing — and indeed pressuring — banks to make such loans without the benefit of many traditional credit-worthiness criteria, such as the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, savings history, and even income verification! Instead, the Fed told banks that participation in a credit-counseling program, many of which are federally funded, could be used as "proof" of a low-income applicant's ability to make his mortgage payments. In other words, federal bank regulators required banks to make bad loans based on nonexistent credit standards.

The documentary Inside Job concentrates a great deal on the bundling and selling of these 'worthless' loans, which I also believe was not allowed until the Clinton administration. But the loans were only undesirable after the CRA 1995 pushed lenders into creating the sub-prime. As far as the banks who were too small to be regulated by the CRA - for competitive purposes they were forced into the sub-prime market for reasons of survival.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

The they did it too argument is weak. Who cares who broke it just fix it.

ahoy Thanatos144,

errrrm....i don't care who broke it, matey...you do.

every other post ye scribe be "liberal this" and "liberal that".

yer arguement is not with me, mate. imma agreein' with ye.

the united states ought to try and emulate Canada.

*nods*

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Thanatos144,

errrrm....i don't care who broke it, matey...you do.

every other post ye scribe be "liberal this" and "liberal that".

yer arguement is not with me, mate. imma agreein' with ye.

the united states ought to try and emulate Canada.

*nods*

- MeadHallPirate

Thats cause it is a liberal method.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Thats cause it is a liberal method.

*slaps his hand on his noggin'*

thar ye go again, Thanatos144.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by SupPackFan

If Wikipedia can be trusted:

The documentary Inside Job concentrates a great deal on the bundling and selling of these 'worthless' loans, which I also believe was not allowed until the Clinton administration. But the loans were only undesirable after the CRA 1995 pushed lenders into creating the sub-prime. As far as the banks who were too small to be regulated by the CRA - for competitive purposes they were forced into the sub-prime market for reasons of survival.

What you are missing is the lobbying by the banking industry to deregulate. They were never forced to do anything.

encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods

Note the word encourage...not "force".

Yes it was the Carter administration that opened the floodgates. That same act I believe, and I may be wrong, was the beginning of allowing mortgages to be sold.

And yes, it was Clinton who opened wide the doors with derivatives and the cross-insuring which caused the failure of AGI.

All of that was based on the belief that real estate prices never go down. I have not been able to find the clip, but Jimmy Carter said those exact words on television to which my father replied "I guess he never heard of the dirty thirties."

But no one was forced to write sub prime loans. I suspect it would be unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by FearandLoathing

What you are missing is the lobbying by the banking industry to deregulate. They were never forced to do anything.

Note the word encourage...not "force".

But no one was forced to write sub prime loans. I suspect it would be unconstitutional.

Like I said, the 1995 CRA allowed banks to compensate for the added risk of borrowing to lower income families so they (the banks) created the sub-prime loan catagory. I am not leaving out the Bush administration, who messed with the Community Reinvestment Act again, trying to one-up Clinton's record on increasing minority family home ownership by further loosening regulations.

My point is, if the government would not have micro-managed the bank industry in attempt to increase home ownership for people of specific color, we would have side-stepped the worst of the catastrophy as Canada has. This idiotic liberal tendency to target groups of people by race, gender, income, or sexual preference is the root of so many current economic problems in the US. But for some reason liberalism is never judged by the results, but only by the original good intentions. Capitalism is always blamed for the following turmoil they create.

By the way, when you say banks were 'encouraged' but not 'forced', that is kind of like our voluntary tax system. The government does not 'force' anyone to pay taxes. But they do encourage - just ask Wesley Snipes.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Canada taxes at a 5% higher rate already, so they have more revenue. You yourself argue that Canada is in a better position than the US so why not raise taxes in the US as well as make spending cuts. This would more closely resemble what Canada is doing. Instead you have just focused on the spending cuts and ignored the fact that canada has a higher tax rate as a percent of GDP than the US. Canada has a more effective health care system on top of that.

That is what you should respond to.

Canadians pay less overall in taxes and private health care as a % of GDP than does the USA.

Why not support your claims with some facts that adjust between the tax rates for some services that are given in return for the taxes?

Bottom line is that we cut services drastically to reduce our deficit and had until the latest recession a surplus.

We also came out of the recession better than the US due in large part to the tighter regulation of our financial markets than was in the US. We did not let our conservative governments sell out all regulation of the financial markets to big banks so that they could build a house of cards that would fall down on all of us.

BTW this is the second time that lack of regulation under a post WW2 GOP government did this to you. When will you ever learn?

Originally Posted by RDK

Canadians pay less overall in taxes and private health care as a % of GDP than does the USA.

Why not support your claims with some facts that adjust between the tax rates for some services that are given in return for the taxes?

Bottom line is that we cut services drastically to reduce our deficit and had until the latest recession a surplus.

We also came out of the recession better than the US due in large part to the tighter regulation of our financial markets than was in the US. We did not let our conservative governments sell out all regulation of the financial markets to big banks so that they could build a house of cards that would fall down on all of us.

BTW this is the second time that lack of regulation under a post WW2 GOP government did this to you. When will you ever learn?

Again it was regulation that caused the housing crash.