# courts



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

There they go again. The activist judges of the supreme court legislating from the bench making the United States of America into the Corporate States of America. You think you saw campaign ads flood the airwaves at election time? You haven't seen anything yet. Democrat or Republican, you should be appalled at the ruling.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Actually you could not get it more backward if you tried. Activist judges are those who change the constitution without congressional votes or any public input. That would be the liberals. What the court did in this case was act within the constitution, for the constitution, for the freedom of speech. Those who think otherwise have a sinister agenda.

McCain with his foolish bipartisanship was taken for a ride and put his name behind a bill intended to stifle freedom of speech and our republic. It benefits only those who follow Saul Alinsky. You know, turn right into wrong, light into dark, west into east and silence anyone who resists you any way you can.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

An obvious shill for corporate America who does not care for the individual who has a right to vote but a corporation never has, has responded. Corporations are not in the constitution and never were. Our founding fathers who wrote the constitution were not only averse to the British, they were also averse to English business' to have sway over the political process (Read their own writings, they are extensive on this subject) Like they say at McDonald's (another large corporation), have it your way. I am assuming from your comments that you think unfettered political ads by (you fill in the blank corporation) in support of either candidate of any party is correct. If so, fine, that is your individual opinion. But for me, the line in the sand has finally been crossed and I will spend every last dime I have (which you know is considerable) opposing the idea and will never, ever, support any candidate of any party of any stripe who will not publicy announce that this decision of the Supreme Court will not stand. I have already sent correspondence to all our current legislative representatives of both parties ( local, state and federal since I have both representing me in my district) stating such. Once again, similar to a few years ago on another Forum on this website, the supreme court decision has drawn a line I will forever oppose. Similiar to the second amendment, of which, as you personally know, I am ardent supporter, this is another one of those principles and will never change my mind. (BTW, this also includes unions and all their miserable ilk on the liberal side). They should not be allowed unfettered political ads. This extends even further, and which I have been advocating for years. The only political ads should be run by the candidates themselves and funded only by donations of no more than $250 from one individual from one election season, including primaries, that have a vote. No special interest, no lobbyist, no corporation, no group. Let the individual voter put up or shut up. QED. My final answer and will not post again on this topic. NO, NEVER, NO, NOT EVER.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> No special interest, no lobbyist, no corporation, no group. Let the individual voter put up or shut up.


Well, I would like that too, but I am not going to give up the first amendment to get it. Large corporations make me sick also, and I would like to hang some lobbyist, but corporations are made up of individuals like it or not. Also, I think it will catch up with the unions. Many of the members who pay huge dues have money donated counter productive to their principles. Still, if the government can't take away their right to speak they can take away mine. In the end when it comes to the political process it must rely on the intelligence of the individual voter. Who did you vote for in the last election? We didn't do so good did we? Perhaps free speech will help us recover. 
Don't forget who is trying to shut us up ----- the liberals.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

"But for me, the line in the sand has finally been crossed and I will spend every last dime I have (which you know is considerable) opposing the idea"

Well I'm happy to hear that this assault on Capitalism has not cost you your fortune.

Some of us have a bigger problem than you seem to with the fact that America's Socialist trend has cost us much of our life's savings.

This Ruling is a move toward Freedom and Liberty which is what made America Great and gives the average person the best chance to improve upon their lives.

These companies are the places where jobs are offered and our retirment accounts get invested ... Seems pretty stupid for folks (Our President included) to go around bad-mouthing them as though they offer no value.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

heres something I read thats sum itys up nicely

It's nothing short of Orwellian that many on the left argue that the First Amendment protects pornography and obscenity, but not the right to freely speak out about candidates for the presidency of the United States. History is clear that the Founding Fathers' purpose in writing the Free Speech Clause was to ensure that people-either individually or as a group (which includes corporations)-have the right to share and spread their ideas and opinions of the government, its policies and its candidates for office. 

President Obama's hypocrisy here is appalling. In the midst of the grossest and sleaziest politics that this country has ever seen over the past weeks' health care shenanigans, with U.S. senators being bought off, labor unions getting a free ride on all of our backs, and special deals cut for every special interest that backs this president, it's astounding that he has the gall to criticize anyone for "special interest" politics. The worst aspects of corrupt Chicago politics are oozing out of this White House, and anyone can see who is enjoying a "big victory" these days.

Obama then ends with a warning, saying that he will go to Congress to craft a "forceful response to this decision." :eyeroll:

That sounds like a threat. And every American should be worried when the president of the United States starts threatening the Supreme Court.

And they should be especially worried when all the Court is doing is protecting one of our most sacred rights. The Supreme Court says it best in its majority opinion: *"Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime."*

In other words, if there is one place on earth where people should be free to join together and pool their resources to inform their fellow citizens about public issues, that place is America. And if there's one time where it's most critical to inform our fellow citizens, it's in the days leading up to an election, where we as a people must choose who will wield the power to rule over us. 
Citizens United v. FEC is a "big victory" alright. It's a tremendous victory for average Americans, restoring their First Amendment rights to join together to be heard. Barack Obama may be fuming, but our Founding Fathers are smiling.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

> Obama then ends with a warning, saying that he will go to Congress to craft a "forceful response to this decision."


in case the dumb-*** has not noticed, he has pi$$ed away virtually all of his political capital.......there are damn few dems left who would back him when it comes to any controversial issue, once again, he is about to overplay his hand....again, he is a slow learner..... :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The liberals are all steamed because this unconstitutional bill was a tool by which the liberals could silence the people, and the media which is Marxist bias would have told us what liberals would want us to hear and nothing more.

How many have heard that Russia also considers our fight a war on terrorism, and that they know they are a part of it. How many have heard that after 9/11 a Russian artist designed a monument that now stands in sight of the statue of liberty. It is a giant tear and inscribed in memory of those who died from the Russian people to the American people? We don't hear about it because the liberals and the media don't want us to think about terrorism. Remember they shut of video of the planes hitting the world trade centers for our own psychological good. BS.

The president and many liberals are not friends of the United States.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

and the voters of Mass. get it......No-bama is once again the battle cry!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> History is clear that the Founding Fathers' purpose in writing the Free Speech Clause was to ensure that people-either individually or as a group (which includes corporations)-have the right to share and spread their ideas and opinions of the government, its policies and its candidates for office.


I don't think that our Founding Fathers' intended for votes to be bought and for our government and it's policies to lay down for the sake of the stock market. The government has sold us out and are now playing the blame game. To say that the democrats are solely responsible for the collapse of the economy is ridiculous and uninformed. The problem here is that as usual, nothing is being done. There has been nothing done about jobs, illegal immigration, outsourcing, tax loopholes, deficits, reforming the markets and lending industries, and getting the focus back on main street.

The funny thing is that now the corporations are speaking out about reform and sensible regulations and no one is listening.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

"There has been nothing done about reforming the markets and lending industries"

Now I'd be interested to hear what it is you would wish to be done to reform these ... aside from simply reverting back to the use of good solid business practices, which I would like to see.

Government intervention is the key ingredient in the distortion and convolution they currently endure ... and what we out here on "Main Street" are forced to deal with.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

The government screwed up when they de-regulated housing loans and let them use stated loans and things like that. The government screwed up when they allowed the derivatives to go unchecked. The government screwed up when they allowed companies to self audit. The government screwed up when they loosened up the commodities markets and have allowed them to become over speculated because you can buy these shares at about 30 cents on the dollar. The government sold us out in the name of free trade agreements.

The main regulations that I would like to see involve more real money changing hands, quality standards on imports (China) so that american mfgr's can compete, and real consequences for shady lending practices. There also has to be something done about illegals here working unchecked.

I was told that I was wrong about the Wal Mart effect, since then I have seen 2 documentaries on the effect of Wal Mart type stores on local economies and local government. I was told on this site that freeing up commodities markets had nothing to do with the spike in oil prices, yet just yesterday on the radio 2 commodities experts said that there really is no more oil being consumed but speculators are driving prices up thinking that the economy is on the rebound, if anything $90 oil will slow any recovery.

I am not against speculating or any investing but it is all too easy to get into and all too volatile. A speculator or investor should have to put up more money at the time of investment. Furthermore it is too easy for pricks like Ahmadinajad (sp?) from Iran to drive up oil prices just by having a speech. I think that Iran produces like one million barrels of oil per day, if he can threaten Israel and get the price to jump $3 in that day he now has 3 million extra dollars to fund his nuclear program. Like immigration this is more serious than repub vs liberal or whatever but more of an issue of national security.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

lobbying, via money, needs to be illegal, along with making all senators and representatives live in their congretional distiricts while they are not in washington. I would suspect those two changes would changed the landscapt in the legislature dramatically.

Truthfully, go look at your local legislature. They are all farmers/ranchers and lawyers. The normal joe just can't get a fair shake as they can't afford to dissapear for several months at a time to go legislate.

Here in SD we hear about making gov't smaller, but if you go and actually look at the proposed legislation for this year, it is all about making gov't bigger.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

For the record ... Government did not "deregulate" housing loans. Government "Compelled" bad lending practices in the name of fairness. They did so to the extent of punishing banks that failed or refused to make the loans. The sound, solid, proven business practices which the Banks would traditionally used were forced aside.

Government also effectively created the derivative market as a result of the compelled bad lending practices they forced onto lenders.

Had Government kept it's nose out of Mortgage lending there would have been no failure.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

DecoyDummy said:


> For the record ... Government did not "deregulate" housing loans. Government "Compelled" bad lending practices in the name of fairness. They did so to the extent of punishing banks that failed or refused to make the loans. The sound, solid, proven business practices which the Banks would traditionally used were forced aside.
> 
> Government also effectively created the derivative market as a result of the compelled bad lending practices they forced onto lenders.
> 
> Had Government kept it's nose out of Mortgage lending there would have been no failure.


You are absolutely right, the government created these problems, at the behest of corporations. Very few leaders, Byron Dorgan being one of them warned of the consequences of dark money and unchecked lending but no one listened. We were told that this was the ticket to prosperity, it turned out that it was the ticket for a few.

The problem now is that the government has to be the one that fixes it. Hopefully they can come up with regulations that do not handcuff the markets, and then back out and let the markets and the economy work on their own. Both up and down.

I disagree that the government compelled anyone to bad lending practices. They did open the door but the decision to write bad loans and participate in predatory lending was the decision of the lender. No one forced anyone to buy these derivatives either. What bothers me is that very few lenders have been punished for this and then they were bailed out to boot.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

There was not much "behest" of the corporations there TK ... it was done at the behest of the politicians wanting to use easy money to purchase votes ... not sure how you are missing that little neuance, but you are.

No lender makes those loans based on sound business practices ... you really need to check out some more of how this all came to be ... you have stood it on it's head there my friend.

The banks had two choices ... they make these nutty loans or they give donations to the likes of ACORN in order to aquire the *Rating* the Government required if said bank wanted to grow it's business.

The Banks were given the carrot of *It's Federally Insured* so if it collapses we (the Federal Government) are going to make it good. And there they (the politicians) all sit pointing fingers.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> There was not much "behest" of the corporations there TK ... it was done at the behest of the politicians wanting to use easy money to purchase votes ... not sure how you are missing that little neuance, but you are.


I think the votes were bought, I don't think that politicians came up with these ideas, I think they were paid to say they did and voted accordingly.


> you really need to check out some more of how this all came to be ... you have stood it on it's head there my friend.


I have read plenty into this. It is the way it happened, unless you think that the government actually came up with the bad loans and derivitives, which I don't. The politicians, the lending execs, and other business execs knew this collapse could happen. They either didn't want to see it or were making so much money that it didn't matter, which I think happened. I agree they knew the government would come in and save the day with our tax dollars.


> The banks had two choices ... they make these nutty loans or they give donations to the likes of ACORN in order to aquire the *Rating* the Government required if said bank wanted to grow it's business


There was some lenders that followed suit because they had to in order to stay in business. I didn't realize that ACORN wielded that much power under George W. and the republican congress. So either that is BS or the republicans are in bed with ACORN too. In other words the republicans could have stopped it when they had their chance in power but they did nothing about it either. Instead they basically did the same thing with the commodities markets.


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

Acorn slowly I turned step by step inch by inch and then I struck. :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

OK TK, first you need to realise this mortgage mess started under Jimmy Carter. A feel good law known as the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This law basically forced banks to make loans to people looking to buy homes in "neighborhoods of color" that also didnt have the credit to afford the home under normal circumstances. Sounds like a good idea, get poor colored folks into homes they own instead of rentals that line a rich white mans pocket.

Now these banks had to make the loans, but they didnt have to offer great loans. Fast forward to the Clinton Era. Clinton deregulated the system by allowing these loans to be sold under a false sence of security. Normally loans were seperated into 3 basic groups, The ones that would not default, the ones that would probably not default, and then the ones that were guaranteed to fault. What they did was take that last group of loans, and subdivide it into 3 groups of its own. The good, the bad, and the UGLY!!! These loans were then sold off to foreign investors under the guise that 2/3's of these loans were likely not going to default. The remaining third of these loans were to be insured against default as well. All this would work fine and dandy because they were giving loans out to anybody, demand was sky high, supply couldnt keep up, and so even if a loan did default, the bank would make a profit on the resell, even in as little as 3-4 months in some markets.

Another Clinton fact. He threatened banks with lawsuits and other malicious threats if they would not include WELFARE payments and UNEMPLOYMENT benefits as income, actually allowing the jobless to purchase a home they wouldn't be able to afford when the gubmint check dried up!

Now you asked why the Republicans didnt do anything about this. During the few years the republicans had control of all 3 branches, a small hiccup in our economy occured. A couple of planes slammed into our countries financial headquarters as well as the hub of our military.

It was later in GW's presidency that people started to question the practices and tried to put a hold on it.

Check out this video, Democrat after Democrat fighting hard to keep the status Quo even though there were signs a collapse was coming. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi ... re=related


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gun Owner your historical recollection of this mess is the same as mine. I just add one culprit and that is Barney Franks.

TK you are right about the republicans when in power didn't do much about it. I don't know if they needed a 2/3 majority to over ride some of the damage done or why they failed. I do know that after 1994 they didn't act like winners. They kept caving to democrat pressure. For the life of me I don't understand that. If they gain the upper hand again and fail like they did in 1994 they will have a larger backlash than the democrats are seeing now. The American people, including myself are sick of all of them.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> I just add one culprit and that is Barney Franks


 You guys never want to mention Phil Gramm do you?  
Here, read for yourself. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html


> Now you asked why the Republicans didnt do anything about this. During the few years the republicans had control of all 3 branches, a small hiccup in our economy occured. A couple of planes slammed into our countries financial headquarters as well as the hub of our military.


They didn't have time to fix the lending industry but they had time to screw up the commodities markets? :bop: 


> They kept caving to democrat pressure


I think they cave to the almighty dollar in their pocket. 


> All this would work fine and dandy because they were giving loans out to anybody, demand was sky high, supply couldnt keep up, and so even if a loan did default, the bank would make a profit on the resell, even in as little as 3-4 months in some markets.


And that is where it got out of control, it went from loans to the low income to loans for giant amounts on high dollar property. Along comes the derivatives, sell them, re sell them, and on and on. Then add in that there is little or no real cash backing any of this. Of course the people moving these loans and derivatives put real money in their pocket. Then the politicians some more of that real money in their pocket. Meanwhile the economy goes in the tank and everyone except the select few are footing the bill.

My point is the same as always, both parties are responsible for the economic mess. Both parties have had chances to fix it and neither did. Both parties have had shady characters in this mess. And I don't buy that a bunch of politicians concocted this sub prime mess, the idea was born on wall street and sold to DC and the ensuing bloodbath is left for all of us.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

TK ... you can take your mistaken perspective on this to your grave if you choose ... but this mess was all about getting loans to people who would otherwise be denied loans. Lenders do not get into that business, Politicians do.

I have no idea where you are educating yourself on these issues, but you are talking like the Polititians and Media about it. You need to get into the legeslation and see just exactly what it is that happened and not listen to the story line shouted by the loudest voices..

edited to add: This mess actually had it's beginning under FDR, so your desire to bring it to GWB vs the world is silly. This is about Government injecting it's self into what should be private business ... not about continuing some petty fight over Republican's should have fixed it. Government has been out of control for decades.

your comment about folks (brokers and the likes) along the way is one thing, but someone is holding the bag (the final note needing repayment) aside form some entities around the world and some American Banks ... the primary ones were Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac ... both Government controlled entities. Don't you see that the Government is the source and they themselves were the ones willing to hold the largest of the bags.

I'm not swo much into the Bush did it or Bush didn't fix it aspect ... but watch this along with Gun Owner's link. The Bush administration was not oblivious to the situation and that is documented fact.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> K ... you can take your mistaken perspective on this to your grave if you choose ... but this mess was all about getting loans to people who would otherwise be denied loans. Lenders do not get into that business, Politicians do.
> 
> I have no idea where you are educating yourself on these issues, but you are talking like the Polititians and Media about it. You need to get into the legeslation and see just exactly what it is that happened and not listen to the story line shouted by the loudest voices..


I agree that the politicians set this up but there were people who made a killing off of these subprime loans and derivatives, and the politicians were rewarded like Gramm was. I think you have been listening to too much Limbaugh and Hannity. This mess was about getting loans to people who shouldn't have got them, until the predatory lending and loopholes were created and then more de-regulation in the late 90's followed by inaction by the last 3 presidents now have Like Gun Owner said, they didn't have to offer great loans but they did. They knew the politicians would scratch their backs again. I'm not giving the politicians a pass on this, but they were not the only ones involved. These lenders only looked at their profits (bonuses) in the short term and not at the future.

The only reason I address George W. and congressional repubs is that they knew this was coming, the dot coms had already collapsed and they did nothing to stop it until it was too late.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

This was one of the better articles I read on this topic. Sorry it took me a while to find it. You will notice in there that there was some bizaare behavior by the SEC, this is where others have reported that there was some backscratching. 
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html


> 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.


This right here is why I think that lenders have to share the blame in this too.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

TK33 said:


> This was one of the better articles I read on this topic. Sorry it took me a while to find it. You will notice in there that there was some bizaare behavior by the SEC, this is where others have reported that there was some backscratching.
> http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
> 
> 
> ...


Tk, the reader comments on the article aren't in agreement with the author. :huh:


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

The Liberal way--------Get it from the goverment,and if you can't then steal it. :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Bowstring said:


> TK33 said:
> 
> 
> > This was one of the better articles I read on this topic. Sorry it took me a while to find it. You will notice in there that there was some bizaare behavior by the SEC, this is where others have reported that there was some backscratching.
> ...


The comments? you gotta be kidding me. The article was wrote by a democrat but it was in business week, with testimony contradicting some beliefs here.

Here is another one:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657539489189043.html


> But the focus on subprimes ignores the widely available industry facts (reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association) that 51% of all foreclosed homes had prime loans, not subprime, and that the foreclosure rate for prime loans grew by 488% compared to a growth rate of 200% for subprime foreclosures. (These percentages are based on the period since the steep ascent in foreclosures began -- the third quarter of 2006 -- during which more than 4.3 million homes went into foreclosure.)


once again the finger is pointed at the lenders and underwriters, along with the politicians. 


> Rather, stronger underwriting standards are needed -- especially a requirement for relatively high down payments. If substantial down payments had been required, the housing price bubble would certainly have been smaller, if it occurred at all, and the incidence of negative equity would have been much smaller even as home prices fell. A further beneficial regulation would be a strengthening, or at least clarifying at a national level, of the recourse that mortgage lenders have if a borrower defaults. Many defaults could be mitigated if homeowners with financial resources know they can't just walk away.


Politicians wrong, yes. Lenders wrong, yes. The fact that these prime loans were the leaders in foreclosure goes to show that the lending industry was reckless.


----------

