Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by AhmedFaisal, Oct 24, 2012.
Absolutely. If there could be a bigger conflict of interest than a voting-machine company having ties to a Presidential political candidate, I don't know what it could be.
Hell, when I worked on a national television game show, even TALKING to the contestants could get you fired, as it could be considered inside ties. Yet, a company making voting machines having political ties is seen as okay?
Not good. I think I read about this a day or two ago, and almost made a thread about it.
I learned about this a while back and as the days pass by, I hear of more attempts of voter suppression (e.g. incorrect information on official websites indicating voter IDs are required, billboards intimidating minority neighborhoods with the voter ID requirement even when these ID laws were suspended in their states, etc.). There are so many ways the right is practicing voter suppression/intimidation.
Makes me very worried.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forcing banks to write bad loans in order to comply with the affirmative-action goals of Bill Clinton's misguided Community Reinvestment Act.
(And the government has mandated that all consumer-level foil be made of aluminum instead of tin because aluminum is a signal amplifier.)
Abandoning smart-ass sarcasm...
I've read this article and others like it before and the author has a point. The evolution of the CRA, especially under the Bush administration helped "fuel" the increase in so-called 'no doc' or 'liar' loans, subprime loans, etc.
However, that doesn't explain why the banks decided that the car wasn't going fast enough and hit the Nitro button while simultaneously trying to get more people to do the same thing even as they prepared their ejection seat.
The suit against Countrywide and Bank of America illustrates this clearly. The banks decided to spread their risk and so they did so by hiding the subprime loans that they had within AAA bonds. This is what created the huge, trillion dollar crisis that we saw implode in 2007.
Had the banks satisfied themselves with the risk of CRA loans or backstopped that risk with stronger holdings, we would have a little turbulence, rather than the epic Felix Baumgartner-esque free-fall we got instead.
People like to blame the Carter-era CRA for this, but there were a dozen other decisions, as well as criminal action, to create the Financial Crisis of 2007. And, that includes the repeal of Glass-Steagall act, as well as the Bush administration's "ownership society" maneuvers.
I agree those are all issues as well...there was no single reason or cause for such a dramatic crapout of the market. From poor oversight to bad consumer choices to a housing market that was blowing up like the Hindenburg while the standard of living remained stagnant...there was a lot that went into it. I suppose I missed your sarcasm.
Absolutely. There's a tendency among Republicans to blame the CRA as the original sin caused by Jimmy Carter, but the CRA came from the disreputable practice of "red-lining" neighborhoods. The mortgage companies could have slowed lending, especially once they feared they had too many lower tranche obligations, instead they just started trading risk. The political input was a problem, but the mortgage companies bought and sold the rope they used to hang themselves.
According to the mods, I was trolling and some of what I had up was removed. Probably for the best.
And, of course, the obligatory election tallying fraud: statisticians analyzing balloting patterns noticed a highly unlikely statistical anomaly in the republican primaries in eleven states. As the totals were reported, Romney's percent edge over his closest challenger widened steadily as the precincts got larger. They claim that the probability of this kind of pattern is so vanishingly small, Excel cannot even represent such numbers.
Realistically, a candidate's lead should wander a bit from precinct to precinct, not get proportionally larger per the size of the precinct. What is truly damning about this research is that the anomaly appears to track alongside electronic voting: where paper ballots are used, the results follow more believable trends.
One could argue that Romney advertises more heavily in population centers so his numbers should be better in larger precincts, but in today's highly connected society, that argument is pretty weak sauce. Large precincts are easier to hide tampering in because thousands of people are not going to gather together to compare their voting patterns like they might in Podunk Pointe.
Of course, the tinkerers will see these studies as well, next time around they will be better equipped to brush their tracks. Or we will s___can touch-screen voting and, hell, maybe go to mail-in voting to cut costs.