West Michigan watches Obama, Romney debate: Add your reactions here

Oct 3, 2012 Full story: MLive.com 195

Joe Doyle and about 15 to 20 other "Democratic faithful" plan to gather tonight in a northwest Grand Rapids home for a presidential debate watch party.

Full Story

“You're gonna make it after all”

Since: May 09

Jenison, MI

#84 Oct 5, 2012
Lucy in Rockford wrote:
If you REALLY want an informed opinion, read the latest interview from Perot -- he called it then, and he hasn't lost his perspective.
Anyone else remember his coining the phrase (or close to it) If NAFTA is signed, just listen for the giant sucking sound from this country, as jobs leave it!"
God, people, pay attention!
All too clearly.....I remember him calling what would happen and I also remember that even though I voted for him and many others did, he didn't even get one electoral vote. Although he clearly made more sense than either of the other two candidates, he didn't make a dent. Americans do not WANT to hear the truth. They want sugar coated BS and that's why we get what we get. Stupid voters vote stupid.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#86 Oct 5, 2012
Really wrote:
<quoted text>So put up your favorite links like HuffPo. Of course, we know they wouldn't recognize an effective tax rate if it walked up and bit them on the behind. What a tool you are!
You are ineffective as is Ryan/Romney/Antichrist 2012.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#87 Oct 5, 2012
BkByer wrote:
<quoted text>
This peaked my interest so I did some research. I learned that the mortgage loan problems actually started as far back as Jimmy Carter (D) who was an advocate of housing for minorities. When Clinton's (D)administration was in office a bill was passed that made it mandatory for banks to approve a % of subprime loans. By doing so it mushroomed into we all know was a disaster. As lending standards were relaxed all too many folks jumped in, minorities or not, and took advantage of the situation, many of them in no position to ever honor their end of the deal. So, to me it seems clear. The liberal thinking is this country should acknowledge their responsibility of our economic mess instead of always, always trying to blame Bush and other Republicans.
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29, 2008

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.)

BWEEK
obarry

Oak Hill, WV

#88 Oct 5, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis
Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29, 2008
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.)
BWEEK
Long post that you took the wrong way. By the way, why did obama file lawsuits regarding forclosures?
obarry

Oak Hill, WV

#89 Oct 5, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis
Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29, 2008
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.)
BWEEK
Nice, copy paste and spam, why don't you tell us why obama sued to protect deadbeat homeowners?
Really

Holland, MI

#90 Oct 6, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
You are ineffective as is Ryan/Romney/Antichrist 2012.
And who in your little world is the Antichrist? Really? You idiots had 2 year old tantrums when that title was thrown on Obama and now you want to use it and just walk around like you own the joint? Not happening.
Really

Holland, MI

#91 Oct 6, 2012
obarry wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice, copy paste and spam, why don't you tell us why obama sued to protect deadbeat homeowners?
He/she can't because they don't believe he did. Anyone who has studied history KNOWS that the CRA contributed greatly to the housing crisis just as NAFTA has contributed to the jobs crisis and spending like drunken sailors by both parties has created the massive debt problem this country has. Of course, these wingnuts also don't believe that the government has effectively killed the Social Security system by taking the monies out every year for their pet projects. Know why these clowns don't believe any of these items? Because they can't comprehend what they read and they were not taught these items in history because that would have been a criticism of the Dems.

“Lost my mind”

Since: Apr 07

be back later

#92 Oct 6, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama: presidential, calm and truthful. He is the man we trust with the nuclear trigger.
Romney: childish, disrespectful, bullying, out of control pathological liar who infects the very ground he walks on. This is the man we wouldn't trust to hold our wallet for a minute.
What Romney's flaccid debate proved is that the GOP is actually looking for a liar. Republiscums want a scumbag to lead them. The rank and file want to be pillaged by 17 billionaires who own Romney. The cloth coat Republiscum in flyover country, old, obese, poor, uneducated and part of the 47% are so full of self loathing and fear they want to be spit upon and told by Ann Romney that her dressage horse is more important than they are.
I never realized that Romney, immoral, unethical, pathologically lying, secretive, deceitful and denigrating is exactly what Republiscums want their leaders to be.
Who knew? Last night proved it. 30 minutes of Romney promising to balance the budget using card tricks and magic wands saying ignore the man with the $7 TRILLION in tax cuts and military spending on the nation's credit card.
Sad that the GOP is now the party of derelicts, hucksters, grifters, liars, criminals and thieves.
Hope and Change.....

Most 'transparent' Presidency...

Oh and let's not forget Pelosi... "We have to pass the bill before we can see what's in it".

Who's the liars again?

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#93 Oct 6, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama: presidential, calm and truthful. He is the man we trust with the nuclear trigger.
Romney: childish, disrespectful, bullying, out of control pathological liar who infects the very ground he walks on. This is the man we wouldn't trust to hold our wallet for a minute.
What Romney's flaccid debate proved is that the GOP is actually looking for a liar. Republiscums want a scumbag to lead them. The rank and file want to be pillaged by 17 billionaires who own Romney. The cloth coat Republiscum in flyover country, old, obese, poor, uneducated and part of the 47% are so full of self loathing and fear they want to be spit upon and told by Ann Romney that her dressage horse is more important than they are.
I never realized that Romney, immoral, unethical, pathologically lying, secretive, deceitful and denigrating is exactly what Republiscums want their leaders to be.
Who knew? Last night proved it. 30 minutes of Romney promising to balance the budget using card tricks and magic wands saying ignore the man with the $7 TRILLION in tax cuts and military spending on the nation's credit card.
Sad that the GOP is now the party of derelicts, hucksters, grifters, liars, criminals and thieves.
Wow!, had to read that post twice.
At first, it sounded like you were describing Obama, and his administration.
BkByer

Hudsonville, MI

#95 Oct 6, 2012
Lucy in Rockford wrote:
If you REALLY want an informed opinion, read the latest interview from Perot -- he called it then, and he hasn't lost his perspective.
Anyone else remember his coining the phrase (or close to it) If NAFTA is signed, just listen for the giant sucking sound from this country, as jobs leave it!"
God, people, pay attention!
\\

You are sooo right, Lucy. And, who was it that signed that agreement...Well, what do you know...a democrat named Bill Clinton.The same Bill Clinton that signed the legislation requiring banks to hand out those crappy loans. How does he dare show his face in this country. Are people blind to what he did?
BkByer

Hudsonville, MI

#96 Oct 6, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis
Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29, 2008
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.)
BWEEK
Well it seems there is a way to spin bs on every issue.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#98 Oct 8, 2012
BkByer wrote:
<quoted text>
Well it seems there is a way to spin bs on every issue.
The truth is not spinning but rightwingers do not care about the truth. Rightwingers only care about things that hurt the USA like that piece of filth lying dirtbag Ryan/Romney/Antichrist.

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis
Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29, 2008
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.)
BWEEK

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#99 Oct 8, 2012
The truth and reality in front of Republiscums.

Pearls before swine.

Luckily, the old farts will be on the ice floe soon and demographic changes will turn us around.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#100 Oct 8, 2012
BkByer wrote:
<quoted text>\\
You are sooo right, Lucy. And, who was it that signed that agreement...Well, what do you know...a democrat named Bill Clinton.The same Bill Clinton that signed the legislation requiring banks to hand out those crappy loans. How does he dare show his face in this country. Are people blind to what he did?
Liar.

Ignorant liar.

Liar.

Are you Dirtbag Romney?

The stock market likes Democratic administrations 5 to 1 over Republiscum ones.

Liar.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#101 Oct 8, 2012
Bill Clinton: full employment economy.
Bill Clinton: 23 million jobs created.
Bill Clinton: on track to pay off the National Debt by 2010.

Dumbya Bush: the greatest financial disaster since the Republiscum Great Depression.

Republiscums are the worst POTUSes, the worst Congresspeople, the worst Scotus judges, the worst people on the face of the earth.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#102 Oct 8, 2012
Dumbya Bush: losing 850,000 jobs A MONTH

Obama: ended Bush's Great Recession in 6 months

Obama: 30 months of job growth

Obama: stock market fully recovered

Obama: housing prices on the rice

Dirtbag Romney: filthy, lying scumbag
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#104 Oct 9, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar.
Ignorant liar.
Liar.
Are you Dirtbag Romney?
The stock market likes Democratic administrations 5 to 1 over Republiscum ones.
Liar.
The stock market doesn't matter dimwit. You and your group of windy whiners said so when Bush was President and it was going great guns. Now that Obama is in office, we should be excited? Vote for Obama and bend over dummy.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#105 Oct 9, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
Bill Clinton: full employment economy.
Bill Clinton: 23 million jobs created.
Bill Clinton: on track to pay off the National Debt by 2010.
Dumbya Bush: the greatest financial disaster since the Republiscum Great Depression.
Republiscums are the worst POTUSes, the worst Congresspeople, the worst Scotus judges, the worst people on the face of the earth.
And you are the most ridiculous example of an Obama lemming that we have seen before. Doesn't mean we are calling you the worst people on the face of the earth. There is a fool born every minute. You are just the most current version.

“Lost my mind”

Since: Apr 07

be back later

#107 Oct 9, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
Bill Clinton: full employment economy.
Bill Clinton: 23 million jobs created.
Bill Clinton: on track to pay off the National Debt by 2010.
Dumbya Bush: the greatest financial disaster since the Republiscum Great Depression.
Republiscums are the worst POTUSes, the worst Congresspeople, the worst Scotus judges, the worst people on the face of the earth.
You forgot signed NAFTA and started the job migration overseas....

“Lost my mind”

Since: Apr 07

be back later

#108 Oct 9, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
Dumbya Bush: losing 850,000 jobs A MONTH
Obama: ended Bush's Great Recession in 6 months
Obama: 30 months of job growth
Obama: stock market fully recovered
Obama: housing prices on the rice
Dirtbag Romney: filthy, lying scumbag
wow.. what are you smoking?!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Back in Iraq. WMD's? oil? 6 hr no_more_dems 103
go blue goes black 7 hr Idea Maker 68
Crowd Walks Out On Obama 7 hr no_more_dems 6
Watch Racebaiter Oprah Wigout On Guest's Opinion 12 hr Eldasha 54
How bad are grand rapids roads 23 hr a commenter 3
Obama and cocaine addicts Tue Oneal 10
Holder is stepping down Mon no_more_dems 164
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match

Grand Rapids Jobs

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]