Obama Boosts CRA Authority To Force Banks To Make Low-Income Loans
 

Here we go again...

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edi...htm?p=full

More information in the link provided. Thought I should stop there before I ended up posting a wall of text.

:nod:

The student loan bubble will go bang first.

You couldn't ignore Rubio's 'Watergate'. You couldn't ignore it if Obama did it either. There's no double standards here.

If Fox News didn't even air Rand's response, can you really expect the MSM to do that?

:rofl2:
Really?
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...OqjhaIGhqYKRQw
did you hear anything about that?
I seriously doubt it.

or this?
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...3Ng_o9B7pZwFXg

any talk in the media about that ending HER presidential aspirations, like the scum at CNN [newsbusters.org]? HAHA, don't bother to search, you wont find any.

Anyway, that's not the point of this thread, so let's not take it OT

The odd thing about Rubio is not that he drank water, but that he ducked out of camera view to do it in the middle of his speach. Never seen that before, including your examples.

It looks like Obama was just waving when he took a sip and Hillary is testifying before Congress; something she did for what, 5 hours?

And Rubio could not even hold out for 20 minutes. :lmao:

Say nic, what are your thoughts on the topic of discussion?

What are your thoughts on the issue at hand?

It does not seem unreasonable to lean on banks to provide more ATMs and Bank outlets in poor areas.

Not so sure about discounted high risk loans, but it appears that is a penalty for banks which engaged in illegal discrimination.

The author of the article seems to be pimping his latest book. I don't see him as being very credible, ohno.

Hide"Great American Bank Robbery"

His latest book "The Great American Bank Robbery" is about how the government's attempt to increase minority home-ownership helped create the sub-prime housing crisis.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pa...#section_2

In fact other accounts claim that the banks were eager to fund any loans they could find as long as they were able to palm them off on Wall St investors; with the cooperation of ratings agencies that were in their pockets.

No government "encouragement" needed.

It is far more likely that the sub-prime scandal was the result of deregulation of the market for CDOs, and CDS which was "insurance" with no reserves required nor funded.

If you want to blame government, blame it for letting the banks do whatever they wanted.

That's different. What happened to it all being Bush's fault?

Huh?

That's just a favorite conservative strawman.

I blame Clinton for FNMA1999, and CFTMA2000. And Bush for not fixing those mistakes.

Agreed there!

But now with bho at the helm, all the blame is on the banks?

Sounds kinda racist.

The bills we agree on were deregulation, allowing the banks to do what they wanted.

Do you blame the "criminal" or the cop who fails to stop him?

You guys seem to blame the cop, when it suits.

Do you think racism is the exclusive province of actions which are mitigation for past racism?

The primary blame is always on the criminal. I blame the "cop" for failing to do his job when he knows what the criminal is doing and could have stopped it.

I blame both when the "criminal" bribes the cop to change the rules.

If the criminal was not screwing the public, the cop would not be necessary.

This won't blow up for a while and at that point, whomever is president will be blamed. Sounds familiar.....

Exactly!

I'm just curious if at any point you thought that you should do at least a quick cursory google search on any information that you posted to see if it was actually true.

I finished reading the wall of text, then decided to google First United Security Bank of Alabama to see if their case supported what the article said since it's the only tangible claim made in what you posted. I mean, EX-BBT guy can say whatever he wants but a lawsuit is on the books.

The claim:
The support:
================A QUESTION FOR YOU ALL===============

Without looking it up or googling it, do you think the First United Security Bank - DOJ case supports the claim?

When a POTUS has 8 years to fix a problem and fails to even attempt a fix, he has signed on to the policy and has a large share of the responsibility for the results.

Based on the rep of the author, I'm guessing not.

entering year 5 of this disaster.

and yet, everyone else is to blame. or, like in the case of Benghazi, no one is to blame....

And you think no fixes have been attempted?

There has been a vast improvement in the economy since 2009 whether your recognize it or not.

Do you blame Bush for 9/11?

So it's about attempts and not actual accomplishments?

Everyone gets a trophy!

Lack of attempts to change demonstrates that the current policy is preferred.

Except for those who don't even try.

I did the same thing and gave up after the second thing I checked was BS.

If the info I presented in the OP is wrong, I apologize.
The thread should be closed.

I think it's important to keep watch on the CRA and what the true outcomes of its regulation results are. You can't reform and do better if you aren't paying attention and there's nothing done by government that should avoid tight scrutiny. I certainly agree with the undertone of the article.

The actual place they went sucks pretty bad though.

Really? last time i checked the unemployment rate (doctored as it is by the Obama hacks in government) is actually the same or even slightly worse today than when Obama took office. Please let us know what these "vast improvements" :lol: are

Probably 100 times the number of jobs being advertised now vs. Jan, 2009.

Jobs are being added regularly (over 4M) rather than 750K jobs lost in Dec 2008.

You're welcome.

12M are without work (an underestimated number), and adding 4M after losing millions more than that is hardly a "vast" improvement. The economy isn't even creating enough jobs to keep up with population growth....but that's ok...i wasn't expecting a real answer anyway.

We are gaining jobs, not bleeding at a huge rate as in Dec 2008.

That is a vast improvement whether you recognize it or not.

but that's ok...i wasn't expecting you to acknowlege reality.

Huge respect.

There hasn't been a single person who could answer these questions.


1. What was the total balance of securitized CRA mortgages.

2. What was the total balance of securitized CRA mortgages that were eventually put into CDOs.

3. What was the total balance of securitized CRA mortgages that were put into CDOs which had CDS issued against them.

4. What was the static pool losses on securitized CRA mortgages.

5. What was the total balance of securitized CRA mortgages that were either first-issue RMBS, CDOs or Synthetic CDOs that were sold into SIVs, SecArb, or multi-seller conduit securitizations.

5. What was the overall terms of securitized CRA mortgages, for example, were they No/Low doc? IO? Option-Arm? Teaser rate?


Until those can be answered, which I have never seen them answered, then the correlation between CRA and the mortgage crisis is dubious at best. The overall volume of CRA mortgages to the entire universe of subprime mortgages during the bubble years was minuscule. Further, I don't think CRA mortgages, for the most part, were sold into securitizations, which was the primary vehicle for leveraging the mortgages and ultimately drove borrowing costs, underwriting/rating fees and CDS ridiculousness.

Mitigation of racism? Wouldn't that be the same thing as delayed racism with a new target?

Racism is showing favor or disfavor for one or more races in any action. You can not combine one pro white racist action with one pro black racist action and expect resolution. Two wrongs still do not make a right.

Yes, but it is not racist oppression of a minority.

Note, that the bad part is oppression.

Except that reparation is not a wrong, it is a justified penalty for a wrong.

You seem to have fogotten you are dealing with a poster that has consistently been for inter-generational justice as defined by shared skin color and not by whether or not the person alive today is even related to those affected by the policies of yesteryear.

Oppression is bad.

So is enforcing penalties on someone who did not commit a wrong action and who only possibly benefited from that wrong action.

No, it is entirely clear that minorities whom are alive today, WERE/ARE affected by the official policies of years past.

And are still affected by unofficial policies of today in some parts of the country.

And I'll thank you to refrain from your erroneous characterizations of my views.

There is no doubt that the white majority benefitted from centuries of free labor of blacks.

It's not erroneous. You said you are OK with Affirmative Action (AKA) preferential treatment based on race because of the decades of slavery and discrimination they were subjected to. Why backpedal now?

So it's OK to give blacks preferential treatment? How can you say that and then accuse Xygonn of erroneously characterizing your views?

It is erroneous:

If persons alive today are not affected, then reparations are not justified.

But it is clear they ARE affected.

Just cause you don't understand, does not mean my statement is wrong.

Clearly you don't understand, so I'll thank you for staying out of my discussion with Xygonn.

1. No, it's not since you are advocating for unequal treatment.

2. Please stop posting in public forums and take your conversation to PM if you want to have a private discussion on a public forum. I'll thank you for following my advice.

As reparations for past official transgressions which continue to affect the population to this day.

I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding this distinction, but until you demonstrate that you do, I'll not be responding to your posts. :wave:

I'll thank you not to threaten me with a good time. :). I'll let you bow out gracefully however. I'm quite merciful.

There is no doubt that some whites have benefited from centuries of free black labor. There is also no doubt that some blacks have benefited from it.

I understand why some think that reparations, etc, make sense to some people, but I do not agree that committing a wrong is the way to fix one.

To the best of my knowledge my ancestors never owned slaves or even lived in areas where slaves were common. What have _I_ done that makes me responsible for any wrong that happened in the past?

We can't go back in time and make history more just. We can work to make our time as just as possible, and penalizing people today due to the actions of others is not just.

Moreover we need to give the indians back their land and go back where we came from....

"You" are not on the hook for reparations. It is society as a whole which needs to repair the damage.

If you did not want a response from me, it does not make sense to address comments to me.

If you want a "good time" all you have to do is avoid interjecting yourself in others' discussions with derogatory comments.

Sorry to intrude on your private discussion but "society" means me and you and everyone else. Thus we are all individually impacted (provided we are the wrong race) when you treat people differently based on race.

But your individual impact as part of the majority is very minor compared to those for whom the damage is repaired.

Not only that, you benefit from living in a just society.

It doesn't make sense to go through the effort to tell someone you aren't going to respond to them and then proceed to respond to them. There were no derogatory comments. I simply pointed out how your comments reflect what Xygonn said. Reparations involve treating a group of people differently based on certain characteristics. In this case it is based on race. You are a strong proponent of this. Thus Xygonn's comments are correct. I don't know what is so derogatory about that. I don't believe that reparations in this case are still required. You can state that fact all day long and I won't take offense. I don't understand where these hurt feelings are coming from. No one said that you hate any race that isn't black. You just support the unequal treatment (in this case in favor of one, previously oppressed race, over another). You act like someone is attacking you. You have your opinions and Xygonn has his.

But how is it just for someone to be given preferential treatment over me based on race when I had nothing to do with the past mistreatment?

Depending on the scope of the 'reparations', the impact may or may not be significant to my life.

You're still ignoring that not all blacks were directly damaged by slavery and not all whites were directly responsible.

It seems your argument is that some people in the past did something bad and it hurt some people. All people that look like the 'bad' people in the past now owe a debt to those who were wronged. How is this just?

It's not just slavery; Jim Crowe persisted for many decades until the 1960's, as well as brutal exploitation by private employers which were enabled by corrupt officials.

The impact persists to this day. It is evident by the continuing over representation of minorities in the underclass. Your ancestors, if not you, contributed to the damage as members of the powerful class in an unjust society which enabled it.

I have an idea, let's shift the goalposts!

You don't know me, my family, or the actions that any of us have taken. Your ridiculous assertions clearly illustrate that there is no just way to enforce this 'justice' that you are proposing.

Seems to suggest that all that affirmative action was for not.

I'll merely link to this thread for the purposes of not wanting to retread the argument:

http://slickdeals.net/f/5319678-S...ve-action?

I won't argue about what happened in the past or how it impacts the people still around today. I have no doubt that many people are still paying for the evils of the past. If your solution to past racism and injustice is future racism and injustice to "balance the scales", I would call you a sore excuse for a person.

Everyone deserves a fair shake. That means you judge an individual based on their actions. You reward an individual based on their actions. You punish an individual based on their actions.

You can judge me for anything I had a choice in. If I didn't have a choice and you judge me, you are prejudice.

You can't be prejudice and argue against prejudice, it's called hypocrisy.

Your recommended actions are racist and hurt a group of innocent people. Do you really want to be guilty of that?

Reparation is replenishment of a previously inflicted loss by the criminal to the victim. If you have the criminal, I am all for reparation. The problem is that you don't have the criminals, most of them are dead. Trying to take reparation from an innocent instead of the criminal is a crime itself. It is not just. It is evil.

The effects of what the Romans did 2000 years ago still persist to this day....so should we punish Italians? The effects of what the Muslim Empire did 1300 years ago also persist to this day, so we should punish all muslims....the effects of what the British, French, Japanese, and countless other empires throught history still persist to this day....

exactly how far back, and in which scenarios throughout humanity's bloody history, are you going to take this, or is only in instances that support your ideological agenda?

my family came to the USA in the 1990's, we had nothing to do with anything your ancestors did. Millions of african immigrants have come to the USA in the last 100 years that have not suffered anything under slavery, so why should they be paid reparations? millions of non-africans came to the USA as well, so why should they pay?

Your "idea" is to pretend that I ever said slavery is/was the only problem.

You mean no way that you will accept; cause there certainly is a way, and it is being done.

The US government has little to no control over those foreign events.

As far back as the official sanction of morally indefensible racist policies by the US Federal and state governments.

No one is asking you to pay personally, but your family knew that US government policy included AA, so they accepted it when they chose to come here. Just as when you buy stock in a company, you agree to pay any penalties levied against it out of the company's profits.

Did you just say, yes, what you support is racist?

I understand the idea of wanting to pay back for the crimes committed. It makes sense. The issue is that you can't give anything without taking it from someone else. If you can't find a guilty party to take from, you can't justify the penalty.

Tell me how you justify it.

I'm 100% innocent of any racial crimes. How would you justify reaching into my wallet or making it more difficult for my children to get into college than a minority's children? Why is it ok or justified to take from the innocent?

Yes, you are asking everyone who pays taxes to pay personally. If you give you must take as well. You are asking all tax payers, innocent or guilty, to pay a penalty.

Don't forget to go all the way back and figure out all the slaves, not just those from africa,..

It is racist to the extent that racism is needed to correct wrongs which were based on race.

Racism is not inherently bad as some like to pretend. It is what is done based on race which makes it evil.

The US government was an instrument of racial oppression and still exists.

You are a "shareholder" in a company which is guilty of morally indefensible policies.

The penalties come out of your share of the profits.

Just those who are still suffering disproportionately from the policies.

No, all of them.

:nono: Since not all slavery was equal, nor followed by decades of Jim Crow laws.

How many other race based slaves were regularly lynched in the early 20th century?

Slavery was not the only injustice perpetrated on blacks.

What is evil is judging, punishing, or rewarding someone for something outside their control. This is why racism or any prejudice is evil with few exceptions.

The US government isn't an entity (like you said an instrument, a tool), it's the voice of the people of the US. (or is intended to be at least) It is not the same guilty party it was when the crimes were committed. The criminals were the people in power. They aren't in power anymore, most are dead. You have no criminal to punish.

The idea of punishing the government is absurd. You never punish the government, you punish the tax payers.

Also, most of us had no choice where we were born and where our family lives. But most of us are innocent and should not be punished.

Sorry, not a racist. All or nothing.

If I'm correct, the best you can do is dance around the issue of the missing criminal. I think you have a reasonable argument for the damages, although the variability would be difficult to account for. The flaw to the whole AA arguement is the missing criminal and the new victim you create. Unless you can justify taking money or opportunity away from a deserving and innocent person, you can't justify AA.

You are not being punished.

You are here voluntarily, so you are in control, if you don't like the deal.

But your deal here is better than anywhere else, which is why you accept it by staying put.

And btw, the US government is an entity AND a tool. Its history does not vanish, no matter how much you wish it would.

Reality is almost never "all or nothing." Almost always shades of gray.

"All or nothing" is an ideological argument.

Like I said, dance around it all you want, it's clear that this is the flaw in your thinking. If you can't justify what you said you can justify, I think it's time to give up.

And, yes, I personally am paying money and have diminished opportunities due to AA. I am being punished and I am not guilty.

I'm reminded of the states that enacted rent a car tax to pay for projects. People eagerly agreed to tax vacationers to their state.

Great plan until their car was in the shop.

I'm just glad we finally did away with most of the discrimination so my kids wouldn't have to face it.

I agree. I have never called 911, yet I pay taxes to support it. I have never used public transportation, yet I pay taxes to support it. I don't agree with certain laws, yet I pay taxes to imprison people who have broken those laws. I am being punished by having my tax dollars go to the military, even though they aren't actually defending me.

The reality is, there are certain 'costs' associated with being part of a civilized society, you either pay them, or move to a third world country and take your chances. You can argue all you want about the missing criminal and claiming you personally have no blame in the game, but you're either completely in or completely out when it comes to being a member of this society, and that goes for its good and its ills.

I did justify it. Sorry you don't get to pronounce yourself the winner of the debate. :lmao:

Only if you are just marginally qualified. Hope you'll excuse me if I don't take your word for your qualifications, but if you're just marginally qualified, you might have lost out anyway.

Usually those taxes are for airport rentals. Here, neighborhood rentals have discounts that are not available at the airport.

Ever been on an indian reservation?

I thought we were debating what was right and what was wrong, aka just/justice, not what society can or can't do. Those are two entirely different things.

WTF? It's not unreasonable for the government to compel private businesses in their location decisions? Wow.

This sentence makes zero sense.

I didn't say "compel" that is your strawman. Influence, yes.

[spoonfed] When banks violate the law, they are often subject to penalties, which might have included business mandates to make loans with higher risk as a way of compensating groups which were wronged. [/spoonfed]

But as I stated, I am uncertain that was justified.

Comprende, now?

What? Threatening fines and prosecution is merely an attempt to "influence" a private business's behavior?

Please stop torturing the English language.

No.

Compelling, through force of law, banks to make riskier loans, then condemning them when they do and massive numbers default, well, that's not exactly a punishment for past discrimination.

But I guess if you believe so... ;)

Please stop inventing strawmen. And point out where the article said those things were used to influence ATM and branch locations.

It's not that risky when only one bank does it as a penalty for past violations.

Only systemic risk when all of them do it and a bubble esues.

Do you think one bank doing that is going to create a bubble? :lmao:

What? You think the federal government uses strong language to influence private businesses?

The article in the OP says threats of prosecution for banks that don't broaden their CRA assessments. LOL!

From the article in the OP:
Many banks, in fact, are under direct federal orders to open new branches or ATMs in high-risk and unprofitable areas of Detroit, St. Louis and other cities hit hardest by the recession.

Hmmm, direct federal orders...

Oh me...

Re-read the article...this is not limited to one city or one bank. Sheesh...

"Assessments" are not ATMs nor branch offices.


Right. "Federal orders" backed by what reprisals? You really think banks can be prosecuted for not having ATMs in the right places?

Yeah, just the ones which were charged with illegal discrimination. How many would that be?

I thought we were debating what was right and what was wrong, aka just/justice, not what society can or can't do. Those are two entirely different things.

Clearly you danced way out of the topic to grasp a straw that could be twisted into a pretend support for your ideology.

You did? Here is the question again. If you can clearly answer it with a reasonable answer, you are the winner of the debate as far as I am concerned. If you cannot, I have made my point and I believe proven why AA and your position stand unsupportable by justice and reasoning.

How do you justify taking from innocent people in place of the criminal for this "reparation" you endorse? Please don't try to hide the innocent people by saying government, the innocent people own the government and must pay for any burden you place upon it.


It's hard to tell if I lost out. When I went to college I applied for grants and scholarships, some were not granted. AA impacts who gets them based on race and gender. I may have been negatively impacted by the racism you endorse at that point. I can't prove I was directly denied anything due to AA, but it's easy to prove that innocent and deserving people are being discriminated against because of AA. Hypocrisy is your solution, it doesn't sound like a solution to me.

If you buy shares in a company which is then penalized for illegal activity, you are penalized as well through your stake in the company, which you chose to purchase.

Same thing with your government. You don't get to play the victim when it's your choice to participate. AA may not be a perfect solution, but there is a problem and IMO it is the best solution we can get practically.


Sorry, not here to satisfy your sense of justice. And you need to look up the definition of hypocrisy, cause I never said that all racism is bad.

So, the key to your statements not being hypocrisy is that you say some racism is not bad?

I would disagree with that point. The only prejudice I find acceptable is judging someone or something as looking dangerous and avoiding them/it. Any longer term prejudice or any prejudice targeting a group that is not inherently dangerous, is bad/evil as far as I'm concerned.

You have an absolute choice in buying that company. You accept that risk when you buy in. I never had the option to buy in or not to buy in to the country. I was born in. My family is here. There is no choice. My vote is not the same thing as choice. You can't punish someone for something that was not their choice and consider it right or just.

This is where I draw the line between right and wrong. You and I do not share the same morals. This is the difference in our thinking. I think your morals are lacking and would not result in a fair and just society. You may feel the same about mine. I'm ok with agreeing to disagree. But I am not wrong. You may not be wrong either.

Is your idea of justice just accepting past injustice with no attempt to compensate nor correct it?

Seems you're far more concerned about your own interests than justice.

That's not the same thing....
You have the option to use 911/public transportation ect. The Military does protect you on a daily basis....You have no choice on reparations unless you are of a certain race.

If it's possible to compensate without creating new victims, yes I am for compensation. I am not for committing a similar crime and calling it compensation.

I am concerned with justice for all parties involved, I am not single minded to myself, the past victims, or the potential future victims. The worst thing we can do in my opinion is create new victims. If you offered a solution that compensated those impacted without creating new victims, I would be on your side.

The is why I focus on finding the criminal. If you have a guilty party, it's very easy to extract justice. The problem we have here is that you don't have a clear guilty party to punish. As a result you pick the next easiest target, one you don't tie emotion to, the big scary government. This only holds up if you don't think the next step forward, you can't punish government, it's only immediately passed on to the citizens, innocent and guilty.

Would you sentence one innocent person to life in jail if your only other choice was to let three guilty murderers go? I would let the three murders go before locking an innocent person in jail for the rest of his/her life. You can't get justice through injustice. The ends can't justify the means. Your goal doesn't make doing something wrong into doing something right.

This is where you are way off base. In no way is AA a "similar crime" to centuries of slavery and decades of the bitter aftermath. In fact it is a meager effort, which is one reason it has not been up to the task of prompt justice.

If you can't recognize that, we have nothing to discuss.

I guess we have nothing to discuss. Because what you are talking about gives advantage to one group of innocent people by disadvantaging another group of innocent people. If you can't admit to that we have nothing to discuss.

There are no living former legal slaves. There is no way to repay those who are already dead. We should have done something long ago if we were going to make that right. We lost that opportunity.

Giving something to their descendants does not make what we did any more right. It only makes what we are doing now more wrong, because it involves creating more victims.

Everyone is entitled to a fair chance in life. This is what our primary responsibility is as a people. It includes all people. You can't give advantage without taking

Please stop exaggerating how bad slavery actually was to the African American race.

How is this helpful. The debate shouldn't be about what we did in the past and how bad it was. The debate should be about if there is anything we can do now that would diminish the evils of the past without committing new evils.

If you are willing to commit evils to right the wrongs of the past, you are evil yourself.

You're ignoring the fact that racial discrimination was legal until the 1960's. People affected by that are still alive today, as are their children who suffer from the injustice suffered by their parents.

But I get it. You think even minor sacrifice by anyone today is "evil." Fortunately you are in the minority. :wave:

No I think taking from innocent people is evil. :wave:

Target the guilty and I'm on your side, target indiscriminately or the innocent, I will never agree or support it. The means are not good, and the ends cannot justify the means.

By the way, I am in the majority, don't deceive yourself.

I love how you avoid all the questions and only attack on things you can spin. It's not the way people act when they have a leg to stand on. I asked you a question, you failed to answer it. I have answered your questions. If I missed one, bring it back up and I will answer it. I am not afraid to answer anything, because I feel I have the high ground.

If you can come up with a fair way to compensate any directly impacted victims without creating more victims, I fully support it. You can't and that is the problem. Don't try to paint me as uncaring or as dismissing the evils that have and still are impacting those who are discriminated against. It's easy to justify paying or giving the advantage to those who were discriminated against. It's hard to justify the taking money or disadvantaging the innocent.

If you care about both groups I can't see how you can support AA.

HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY TAKING MONEY OR DISADVANTAGING THE INNOCENT? This is what you are doing. If you can reasonably justify it, you win. I have not seen any reasonable justification provided. Don't chicken out, face the question.

Your way of thinking continues to feed the flames of racism. There isn't a single African American on this planet who deserves anything from me, and the more someone tries to tell me that they do is the more I will continue to move in the opposite direction.

Good for you; don't really care what you do.

I'm more interested in solving problems created by injustice.

People who are in denial about the huge problems created by past injustice do not interest me.

Try solving injustice without creating injustice then.

I'll stick with solving a great injustice with pragmatic policies that only a minority of the marginally qualifed consider to be "injustice."

Many of the rest of us consider it to be a debt owed.

Still sticking with spin and avoiding the question huh?

I think anyone would consider taking money from an innocent person an injustice. I think anyone would consider reducing the opportunity of one group of innocent people only to increase the opportunity of another group an injustice.

It is never just to take from the innocent. Until you can face that I would keep your below the belt attacks to yourself.

wow..

124nic8, are you done? Did you give up? I assume you are going to refuse to answer that key question:

HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY TAKING MONEY OR DISADVANTAGING THE INNOCENT?

I'm surprised that he had that much patience.

I repeated the question so many times and got no answer. Seems like he didn't have one. Like he couldn't justify it. No surprise, there is no justification for it.

well, I certainly don't have that much patience

The same way others justifying taxing me for things I disagree with.

You're either in this country and agree to play by the rules or you're free to leave.

"Innocence" has nothing to do with it.

I never said they didn't have the power to do it. I said it was wrong. Just because it is so, it doesn't make it right.

And I like the spin to avoid actually answering the question.

We have gone through your whole avoidance loop. We are back where we started and I was still asking the same question. Want to go around again, answer the question, admit defeat, leave silently in defeat, or reply with an attack to divert?

I've answered your question in several ways.

I'll spell it out one more time. There is a sociological problem and the government has determined the best way to solve it. It does not have to qualify as "right" in your judgement, and I doubt any explanation ever will, cause you've made up your mind you don't like it.

I'm not here to meet your expectations. :wave:

ok, I have a few simple yes or no questions. I don't thing they should be hard on you if you truly believe what you say.

Does the solution (AA) qualify as "right" in your judgement?
Whatever the justification, in this case do you find that "taking from innocent" is justified by something?
Is the government decision what justifies it to you?

I believe by your statements that you would say yes to all of the above. If that is true, I think we have both stated our point of view and made it abundantly clear where we stand and that we both feel that we are right and will not budge.

I think we can, fully understanding each other, agree to disagree if you agree that you would answer yes to all three.

Fixed that for you...

Funny how Democrats always appeal to these "rules" without much thought about how the rules are manipulated, well, that is, they feign ignorance while at the same time manipulating rules to engage in social engineering in the classroom, bribe the states, punish the successful, etc.

Sociological problem and the "government" has determined the best way to solve it? LMAO! Seriously?

Why the blind faith in "government" to solve anything?

Remember when the government tried to solve high prices by imposing price controls?
Remember when the government tried to solve high unemployment by "investing" in "shovel-ready" projects?
Remember when government tried to solve student underachievement?
Poverty?

LOL!

Always with this blind faith and appeal to the "government" to solve something.

I'm flattered that you think I have the power to set the rules. :lmao:

And we now have a black POTUS, so it seems AA might be helping to increase the number of black role models in this country. :P

BTW, the last time price controls were tried, it was a Republican who done it.

And thank him for the EPA, too.

No credit to AA...in fact, what we see with AA is a higher incidence of blacks dropping out of college because of a mismatch with the demands of higher quality secondary institutions. Here's one of many, though often under-reported stories about AA programs and their effects on blacks [wsj.com].

So what? The fact is that the government solution failed and failed miserably.

But neither example you provide says anything about a successful government solution.

That you blindly believe that we should be run by technocrats is absurd and perverse.

That you believe I am blind is absurd and perverse.

You have been backed into an intellectual corner. You can't get out. You have no logic other than to say that the government can justify it's own actions. No logic or reasoning, no morals, nothing else is required but for the gov to give itself permission.

I think you ran out of ideas that passed muster a while back. Unless you wish to step back to the plate and bring something new, I think it's time you walk away or admit defeat.

I'm pretty sure your just going to shoot back a snide comment and pretend none of this ever happened though.

Here is the question again: HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY TAKING MONEY OR DISADVANTAGING THE INNOCENT?

Claim that you answered it all you want, I think people can read your "answer" and judge for themselves.

Just to clarify, in my world, stealing from an innocent person is wrong, punishing an innocent person is wrong. Is it different in your world?

We have an official concession: