Cash For Clunkers... Sad
- Thread starter ExtremeRaceCars
- Start date
mike44
Member
Bopper,
This stuff isn't good for your health. Yesterday you started 2 threads that were....to say the least.....extreme.....and they both got deleted. The Country isn't as one sided as you've been led to believe. There are lousy politicians on both sides of the aisle. There are extreme fringes in both parties. Both extreme fringes are kinda looney in the minds of the other 95% or so of the population whose views are somewhere inbetween the 2 extremes. You won't save the world posting extreme views on a racing website. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion this isn't really the place to discuss politics. Best of luck to you sir and to your daughter Trista as well. Have fun at the races.
This stuff isn't good for your health. Yesterday you started 2 threads that were....to say the least.....extreme.....and they both got deleted. The Country isn't as one sided as you've been led to believe. There are lousy politicians on both sides of the aisle. There are extreme fringes in both parties. Both extreme fringes are kinda looney in the minds of the other 95% or so of the population whose views are somewhere inbetween the 2 extremes. You won't save the world posting extreme views on a racing website. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion this isn't really the place to discuss politics. Best of luck to you sir and to your daughter Trista as well. Have fun at the races.
kingeddy
Mean Old Ignorant Bastard
Bopper, are you bored???
This is cut and paste but it will explain the effect of CRA for you, truthfully.
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.)
This is cut and paste but it will explain the effect of CRA for you, truthfully.
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.)
Bopper:
You touch on the issue of subprime lending but contrary to your statement it was not wholly caused by the Community Re-development Act.
The CRA was created to prevent the already established practice among the banks of "Red-lining".
There was no quota placed on how many CRA loans a bank must make, it only demanded that if a person and property would otherwise qualify for a loan the banks could not deny that loan because of where the property was located.
Futhurmore Clinton because of concerns raised by congress that the banks would exploit the program by making to many CRA loans and dump the risk onto freddy and fannie placed a limit on how many CRA loans freddy and fannie could buy.
The sub-prime issue did not come into being until after the republican controlled congress repealed the long standing "Glass-Stegall Act" which had been enacted to prevent the banks from the self destructive conduct that we now see they do not have the self discipline to not engage in.
You touch on the issue of subprime lending but contrary to your statement it was not wholly caused by the Community Re-development Act.
The CRA was created to prevent the already established practice among the banks of "Red-lining".
There was no quota placed on how many CRA loans a bank must make, it only demanded that if a person and property would otherwise qualify for a loan the banks could not deny that loan because of where the property was located.
Futhurmore Clinton because of concerns raised by congress that the banks would exploit the program by making to many CRA loans and dump the risk onto freddy and fannie placed a limit on how many CRA loans freddy and fannie could buy.
The sub-prime issue did not come into being until after the republican controlled congress repealed the long standing "Glass-Stegall Act" which had been enacted to prevent the banks from the self destructive conduct that we now see they do not have the self discipline to not engage in.
Both parties are to blame I was answering someone else's post with something loosely related I read. I blame Bush for the Iraq war, out of control spending, patriot act and other ant-american policies. I don't see how pointing out DECLARED communists(by their own admission) in Obama's administration is radical. Look what the union thugs have done at the St Louis town hall meetings. Look at the coverage of the man in AZ with the ar15 on him. They call it racist and don't show the fact that he was a black man. The media chided Bush constantly for the deficit spending and say nothing when Obama does it 20 fold, I just don't get it.
Shaw18 Racing
St. Jacob Glass
Booper:
If you truly do own all the businesses that you have previously claimed to own and operate then your statement: " First time at the gov't trough and I got rotten food" only proves that you don't have a clue as to the workings of gov't or the benifit that you personally receive from it. And also proves that you are nothing more than a stooge for the republican party.
If you truly do own all the businesses that you have previously claimed to own and operate then your statement: " First time at the gov't trough and I got rotten food" only proves that you don't have a clue as to the workings of gov't or the benifit that you personally receive from it. And also proves that you are nothing more than a stooge for the republican party.
dirt hound
Registered User
and your just a looney liberal for the democrats have a nice day
Phoneyix I pay waaaayyyyy more taxes in than I get roads,water etc from the govt (which is necesary) you have never "proven" anything, you are just an enabler for a socialist. get an open mind to protect this country from the radicals in control now.
dirt hound
Registered User
why certainly since 1983 been working
yes, since 1982 when I was working my way thru college and bought it from my boss.
I will slow down a bit for you. I traded my expedidition, a one owner decent vehicle with 200,000 miles. The gov gave me $3500 for it. Now they decided that $3500 will be taxed as regular income. The vehicle was worth $2500? My tax bracket means I wil have to pay roughly $1200 in taxes for a net loss of $200. If you have specific questions ask me.
dirt hound
Registered User
Maybe i came out better trading in the non clunker gotmore than 3500 off alot more and no extra taxes
This is the first I have heard about taxing the value of the clunker credit.
Come on Bopper shed some more light on the issue, could it be that you had depreciated that vehicle (soaked the taxpayers for the origional cost of it) and that since you now did recover some of that cost you now have to pay back to the taxpayers that previous depreciation.
Come on Bopper shed some more light on the issue, could it be that you had depreciated that vehicle (soaked the taxpayers for the origional cost of it) and that since you now did recover some of that cost you now have to pay back to the taxpayers that previous depreciation.
I wasn't referring to this, I was asking about your republican lingo. It makes no sense.
