sinceraly;

nash lee naden

tonkawa,OK

I do not have a problem with productive taxpayers being required to pay for food for Legal American Citizens whom truly can not provide food for themselves. I have a huge problem with productive taxpayers being required to pay for food for Invading Illegal Aliens and otherwise LAZY ass people who just leach off the system because they can, or would rather piss what money they have on nonessential items. The perfect solution is a food-bank where essential items (bulk bags of rice, beans, potatoes, etc.) can be gotten, nothing extravagant.

Here is a link to the whole conversation.

IUSB Vision Editor Responds:

Thanks for posting this as the entire video proved our point and that what we posted above is perfectly in context. It is great to have not just Obama’s admission where he says that government can let her mom’s doctor know that “it isn’t going to help” and then in the next breath contradict himself and say that government will not be getting in the way of doctor/patient decisions. Of course they will, that is exactly what the IPAB is for, not to mention 149 other bureaucratic boards in ObamaCare. It doesn’t take 150 bureaucratic entities to tell a doctor to treat you or to send a check.

[...]Utopia vs. Freedom – How Politicians are Ruining Healthcare by Trying to Make it “Perfect” « The IUSB Vision Weblog[...]…

As important, the survey found Americans unconvinced that safety-net programs represent a major source of the deficit problem. When asked to identify the biggest reason the federal government faces large deficits for the coming years, just 3 percent of those surveyed said it was because of “too much government spending on programs for the elderly”; only 14 percent said the principal reason was “too much government spending on programs for poor people.” Those explanations were dwarfed by the 24 percent who attributed the deficits primarily to excessive defense spending, and the 46 percent plurality who said their principal cause was that “wealthy Americans don’t pay enough in taxes.” While minorities were more likely than whites to pin the blame on the wealthy avoiding taxes, even 43 percent of whites agreed.

We might all wish to heed Madison’s further warning: “It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government has too much or too little power.” Religious liberty required the protection of state authority, in creating a barrier around the individual and guarding against intrusions from religious institutions.

The fact remains that President Obama is no more a French Revolutionary Jacobin than Jefferson or Madison. It appears, in fact, that the president has a very clear understanding of religious liberty, appreciating the boundaries between church and state just as Madison intended. His promptly conceived compromise solution, respecting religion without restricting rights, fits the balanced, reasonable approach our founders prescribed when they fought, state by state, to eliminate state funding and sanctioning (i.e., disestablishment) of privileged sects.

If the last three years tell us anything, 2012 will not usher in a new Age of Reason. Fanaticism will continue to seize the news cycle. Rick Santorum has learned (perhaps from Donald Trump and birther mania) that the best way to grab the headlines is to ramp up the epithets, bark the loudest, and fantasize a history that never was.

IUSB Vison Editor Responds:

Rosie. I see that you are in great need of a history lesson. Your entire premise is based on the assumption that believeing in God, and believing that our Rights come from God and not man, is religious fanaticism.

Most of these same Founders went home and wrote new Constitutions for their states, ALL of them without question mention God. The fact that ALL of the state constitutions show GHod is evidence of just how correct the traditional conservative point of view is on this matter.

Jefferson went to church every Sunday in the Capital Rotunda where they had church services until just a few decades ago. Jefferson signed into law a bill passed by Congress to use tax dollars to teach Christianity to the Indians. Jefferson also insisted that the Bible be taught to every student in every school he founded.

There are, of course, many more Founders besides Jefferson. Almost all of the Founders were church leaders and most of them are quoted as saying that liberty cannot exist without Christianity. Washington spoke of this in his Farewell Address and in the Thanksgiving Proclamation. The historical case for this is overwhelming.

Of the 12,000 letters the Founders wrote to each other, progressive secular legftists focus on six of them while pretending that the rest do not exist.

The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.” [George Washington: First Inaugural Address (circa April 30, 1789)

IUSB Vision Editor Responds:

Really indeed. Those kinds of signs are commonplace at ACORN protests. There are thounsands of pictures of such protests with similar signs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

The myth that the CRA is responsible for the financial crisis of 2008 is laughable. It is the little lie conservatives tell themselves before the go to bed so that they don’t feel so bad about the financial catastrophe they caused with their BS “economic theory.” Their theory is essentially that if you give all the money in the nation to a very small group of people, the country will do very well. Umm, yeah. Tell me how that one is working out for ya…..

Relation to 2008 financial crisis
See also: Subprime mortgage crisis and Global financial crisis of 2008–2009

Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[100] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with “forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.”[105] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.[106]

However, many others dispute that the CRA was a significant cause of the subprime crisis. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman[107] noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.[108] According to Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that “the law pushed Itbanking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending” was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.[109] In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that “there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust”, relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[110] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[111] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[112] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[113] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[114] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[115] Daniel Gross of Slate,[116] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[117]

Legal and financial experts have noted that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][118] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made “perhaps one in four” sub-prime loans, and that “the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight”.[119] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky “high-priced loans” at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[120] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[121] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[122]

During a 2008 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the financial crisis, including in relation to the Community Reinvestment Act, asked if the CRA provided the “fuel” for increasing subprime loans, former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst encouraging bad behavior, but it was difficult to know. Raines also cited information that only a small percentage of risky loans originated as a result of the CRA.

IUSB Vision Editor reponds:

First of all, much of this information is already in our articles. Usually when people post to a blog, they read the article and the linked material and THEN post – IN THAT ORDER.

Second of all, no where did was say that CRA alone was responsible for all of this alone. We made this clear in this piece (which you obviously didn’t read) and in several of the pieces linked. What CRA did do is provide a critical cog to get this crisis rolling. When Janet Reno and Andrew Cuomo fined a bank a billion dollars for redlining when in fact they were just applying standard banking practices, that sent a chill in the industry that made banks scared to death to say no to minorities and afraid to say no to homes in depressed areas that were losing value. Andrew Cuomo even said that he had used CRA to be an affirmative action lending program.

When Fannie/Freddie was willing to buy all of the high risk loans there was no reason for banks not to give them. Who cared if the bank knew there was no chance the customer could not repay the loan, they passed it off to Freddie and Fannie and it was no longer the bank’s problem; it became YOUR problem.

So while the CRA by itself was not THE lynch pin, the regulatory and enforcement abuse of the CRA for political reasons and the abuse that was compounded by ACOEN working with the Democratic Leadership such as Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Andrew Cuomo and Janet Reno certainly was.

Lastly, you use an article that gives Frank Raines credibility when he was a key player responsible for this mess and he changed the rules at Fannie Mae to pay himself over 90 million dollars. The man is a grade-A financial crook.

Books by Thomas Sowell and the Business Editor of the NYT both came to the same conclusions as I did and neither of their books held CRA and its abuse by partisan Democrats innocent in this catastrophe. The simple fact is that the loans that gave banks the highest CRA points were usually the very same high risk loans that blew up the system. If CRA loans were so profitable on thier own, than why would banks need the government to push them into making such loans? Why would banks dump those loans on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if they were so profitable?

PS – One should try to avoid using Wikipedia as a source as it is manipulated by PR firms and can say almost anything.

There are so few voices in high places calling for justice for those who have been robbed? The pigs in high places have their snouts still deep in the trough. Where are the people with honesty and integrity in positions of power? The sad thing is there is no-one to come to the rescue, no-one to fight for those who have been wronged.

I equate these robber barons as morally on a level of the Nazis. They know as they count their sheckels that every coin in their off-shore account has come from the hard-earned wages of the ordinary man and woman. Unless Governments have the moral muscles to right these wrongs there will come a time when people have to resort to open rebellion to clean this situation up.

I am a peaceful person who would normally not advocate that people rise up against their elected governments but until elected governments start to actually represent their citizens and act with moral fortitude then the people of the world will have no-one fit to be elected or obeyed.

[...]GOA Report – Dozens of Govt. Agencies in Duplicate – Massive Waste. « The IUSB Vision Weblog[...]…