This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Picklebobble2 · 61-69, M
🤔.....and big bank bail-out packages
😖 Sorry ! I meant to say 'Troubled Asset Relief Programme'.
🤔 And the odd 'stimulous package'.
Next one somewhere around the next election i should imagine
😖 Sorry ! I meant to say 'Troubled Asset Relief Programme'.
🤔 And the odd 'stimulous package'.
Next one somewhere around the next election i should imagine
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@sunsporter1649 We wanted individuals graded on their individual credit ratings, not on arbitrary red lining of whole neighborhoods and communities based on race/ethnicity. That is not what the banks did. The flipped to the opposite extreme and started handing out mortgages like M & Ms at Halloween.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@dancingtongue The banks accused of “racism” by the Obama administration include banks that were previously praised by non-political government agencies for their success in minority outreach and lending to minorities in regions in which they did business. For example, the Obama administration is suing Cardinal Financial Corp., even though “the FDIC in the past gave kudos to Cardinal for its lending practices. Justice is now accusing Cardinal of failing to open branches and achieve racial loan quotas in counties that its federal regulator never before contended should be the focus of its lending,” arguing that it was not enough for the bank to make loans to minority applicants who applied for loans, and that it had an affirmative duty to open new branches in heavily-black areas it had never done business in before.
The Obama administration’s demands suggest it learned nothing from the financial crisis, which was caused partly by “diversity” mandates and affordable housing mandates that encouraged lending to people with bad credit scores who later defaulted on their loans. Banks were under great pressure from liberal lawmakers to make loans to low-income and minority borrowers. For example, “a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers,” The New York Times noted. As The Washington Examiner noted, the government also “encouraged riskier mortgage lending by minimizing the role of credit histories in lending decisions, loosening required debt-to-equity ratios to allow borrowers to make small or even no down payments at all, and encouraging lenders the use of floating or adjustable interest-rate mortgages, including those with low ‘teasers.’” The liberal Village Voice previously chronicled how Clinton administration housing secretary Andrew Cuomo helped spawn the mortgage crisis through his pressure on lenders to promote affordable housing and diversity. “Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments.”
Financial analysts at major investment banks have recently recognized that these government mandates played a bigger role in the financial crisis than previously thought. Former financial executive Ed Pinto has chronicled how the government promoted the risky non-traditional mortgages that defaulted in huge numbers. A recent book co-authored by The New York Times’ Gretchen Morgenson chronicles how federally-promoted lower lending standards spawned the financial crisis, and put minority borrowers into homes they could not afford.
The Obama administration’s demands suggest it learned nothing from the financial crisis, which was caused partly by “diversity” mandates and affordable housing mandates that encouraged lending to people with bad credit scores who later defaulted on their loans. Banks were under great pressure from liberal lawmakers to make loans to low-income and minority borrowers. For example, “a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers,” The New York Times noted. As The Washington Examiner noted, the government also “encouraged riskier mortgage lending by minimizing the role of credit histories in lending decisions, loosening required debt-to-equity ratios to allow borrowers to make small or even no down payments at all, and encouraging lenders the use of floating or adjustable interest-rate mortgages, including those with low ‘teasers.’” The liberal Village Voice previously chronicled how Clinton administration housing secretary Andrew Cuomo helped spawn the mortgage crisis through his pressure on lenders to promote affordable housing and diversity. “Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments.”
Financial analysts at major investment banks have recently recognized that these government mandates played a bigger role in the financial crisis than previously thought. Former financial executive Ed Pinto has chronicled how the government promoted the risky non-traditional mortgages that defaulted in huge numbers. A recent book co-authored by The New York Times’ Gretchen Morgenson chronicles how federally-promoted lower lending standards spawned the financial crisis, and put minority borrowers into homes they could not afford.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Jake966 · 56-60, M
Medicare shouldn’t be something for all just for those who really need it and can’t work
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@Jake966 This Medicare For All semantics mash-up -- intended to win support for universal health care since most people are satisfied with Medicare -- has just confused the issues involved.
1. Health care will not become more affordable until the cost is spread over everyone like auto insurance is. Otherwise the mostly healthy young people will continue to go without health insurance because they figure they don't need it, leaving the older people who can least afford it (and the young who are surprised with cataclysmic health crises) to foot the high end costs for either risk-adjusted health insurance or property tax payers in public hospitals.
2. As long as we cling to the fable of Marcus Welby fee-for-service medicine, making house calls and living totally by the Hippocratic Oath of do no harm and being a Good Samaritan, the health care system is going to be fraught with layer upon layer of mark-up profit for and gotcha games between for-profit insurers and hospitals and doctors -- not to mention the great opportunities for fraud at every transaction.
3. We need a universal health care system to spread the costs over the entire population because we are all going to need that health care system at some juncture. We need to move away from the fee-for-service, piece-rate billing system that even Medicare uses, and all the risks and abuses it brings with it. Any one for a $30 bandaid, or an unneeded tonsillectomy? The Affordable Care Act actually had steps to move in that direction, where provider networks would be encouraged to work in treatment teams and would be paid for treatment modalities, competing on terms of quality, outcomes, cost, and service in the marketplace rather than cost alone. And it actually did take the first step in mandating minimum levels of coverage by health plans, screening out the el cheapo for profit rip off insurers who collect premiums and pay for very little if anything after pre-existing conditions, high co-pays, and every exclusion they can think of. But nearly two decades of obstruct has derailed that as the confusion over the terms Medicare and Universal Health Care are doing now.
1. Health care will not become more affordable until the cost is spread over everyone like auto insurance is. Otherwise the mostly healthy young people will continue to go without health insurance because they figure they don't need it, leaving the older people who can least afford it (and the young who are surprised with cataclysmic health crises) to foot the high end costs for either risk-adjusted health insurance or property tax payers in public hospitals.
2. As long as we cling to the fable of Marcus Welby fee-for-service medicine, making house calls and living totally by the Hippocratic Oath of do no harm and being a Good Samaritan, the health care system is going to be fraught with layer upon layer of mark-up profit for and gotcha games between for-profit insurers and hospitals and doctors -- not to mention the great opportunities for fraud at every transaction.
3. We need a universal health care system to spread the costs over the entire population because we are all going to need that health care system at some juncture. We need to move away from the fee-for-service, piece-rate billing system that even Medicare uses, and all the risks and abuses it brings with it. Any one for a $30 bandaid, or an unneeded tonsillectomy? The Affordable Care Act actually had steps to move in that direction, where provider networks would be encouraged to work in treatment teams and would be paid for treatment modalities, competing on terms of quality, outcomes, cost, and service in the marketplace rather than cost alone. And it actually did take the first step in mandating minimum levels of coverage by health plans, screening out the el cheapo for profit rip off insurers who collect premiums and pay for very little if anything after pre-existing conditions, high co-pays, and every exclusion they can think of. But nearly two decades of obstruct has derailed that as the confusion over the terms Medicare and Universal Health Care are doing now.
Jake966 · 56-60, M
@dancingtongue can you see how good Obama did ? Un affordable healthcare because he tried to make it universal for everybody and if you couldn’t afford it, there was a penalty which was absolutely stupid so your whole spread equally to everyone theory doesn’t work
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
Strange priorities.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
But it isn't a "war," right? Il Duce's calling it an "incursion." 🤣
At least that's the most recent terminology.
At least that's the most recent terminology.
1490wayb · 56-60, M
never heard of...DEATH TO AMERICA over last 47 years...and forgotten 9-11 too. he is pro active to stop another such atttack killing many innocent victims from many countries
ElwoodBlues · M
@1490wayb says
tRump wants to stop the killing of innocents by ... [checks notes] ... killing innocents! RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT
he is pro active to stop another such atttack killing many innocent victims from many countries
tRump wants to stop the killing of innocents by ... [checks notes] ... killing innocents! RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT
WASHINGTON, March 11 (Reuters) - A strike on an Iranian girls' school that killed scores of children may be the result of U.S. use of outdated targeting data, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Wednesday, providing new details about what would rank among the worst cases of civilian casualties in decades of U.S. conflicts.
Reuters first reported on Thursday that an ongoing, internal U.S. military investigation showed U.S. forces were likely responsible for the strike on the girls' school in Minab.
Video surfaced that experts say appears to show a U.S. Tomahawk missile striking the area. But exactly how the tragedy unfolded has remained unclear and the Pentagon has declined comment, saying the investigation remains ongoing.
Reuters first reported on Thursday that an ongoing, internal U.S. military investigation showed U.S. forces were likely responsible for the strike on the girls' school in Minab.
Video surfaced that experts say appears to show a U.S. Tomahawk missile striking the area. But exactly how the tragedy unfolded has remained unclear and the Pentagon has declined comment, saying the investigation remains ongoing.
1490wayb · 56-60, M
@ElwoodBlues he is the 1st and only worldleader in this category...RIGHT
ElwoodBlues · M
MoveAlong · 70-79, M
No money for food vouchers for children, the poor and less fortunate either.
Waveney · M
Everyone here is deliberately missing the point. Why can’t America be honest and simply say it doesn’t want to provide free healthcare; it would rather bomb schools.
Waveney · M
@sunsporter1649 The Federal government. If it can pay for war it can pay for heath care for all.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@Waveney Where does the gubberment get all this money?
Ken4family · 18-21, M
@sunsporter1649 oh, it's free...lmfao... she's in the Islamic State of England... it's non of her business.
Ken4family · 18-21, M
It's not your concern you're in the Islamic Republic of England.
kittee · 26-30
it can afford a war, at $1 million a misile and theyve fired over 1,000 at irna, strange
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
MrBrownstone · 46-50, M
Stop paying for illegals.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment


















