The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Not just the Minimum Wage: Red States Rapid Decline a Harbringer for Liberals if we fail to act

If there were any Christians among the billionaires in this country, there wouldn't be a problem.

Off topic a little, but I just read somewhere today an article that said that, among Republicans in the House of Representatives, with all of its current Republicans (how many, about 245 or 250?), EVERY ONE OF THEM WHO WAS **ELECTED**, WITH NO EXCEPTION, is a white Christian male. Is this true? The article emphasized "elected" (perhaps there was some interim Republican replacement, who was appointed pending a special election, who may have been a woman, or black, or something?) - but I'm not sure if it relates to the 114th Congress (NEW/CURRENT one), or the 113th.

I would think it would be highly unlikely for the brand-new 114th Congress to already have an "interim" member from either party.
 
Off topic a little, but I just read somewhere today an article that said that, among Republicans in the House of Representatives, with all of its current Republicans (how many, about 245 or 250?), EVERY ONE OF THEM WHO WAS **ELECTED**, WITH NO EXCEPTION, is a white Christian male. Is this true?

No but it's not far off.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/housedemos/housedemos.html

The Republicans are overwhelmingly white males, while only about half the Democrats are.
 
The world is not as simple as your blindly-accepted dogmas would suggest. There are and entire series of laws designed to require banks to make loans in poor and minority neighborhood. The entire purpose of the laws is to require banks to make loans they mat prefer not to make. Banks undergo a separate audit to ensure that they are make such loans, and the loans are audited. But, of course, if loans goes wrong then the bureaucrats, like
you, will dishonestly posture that doubtful loans should not have been made.

I have no doubt that you believe with all your heart in these laws which you cannot name.

Republicans have voices in their heads which tell them of the existence of phantom laws destroying the banking system, hoardes of immigrants threatening to take their language away, scientists who will make them drive Fiats, and gays who will force them to marry horses and bake cakes.

I know that it makes you angry that the rest of us cannot see your demons.

[Text: Removed]
 
I have already named the Community Reinvestment Act, which has been amended in a series of acts, as discussed in the Wikipedia discussion of the CRA to which I referred you. I also referred to the new act, i.e. the Dodd Frank "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, enacted in response to the meltdown.
 
These red states also have the highest percentage of people on welfare most are white!
 
So you think everyone should be a financial expert.

I think everyone needs to have at least a reasonable level of competence in personal finance if they want to successfully plan for their future.

You don't necessarily need to understand macroeconomics, but a basic understanding of saving and investing, knowing how to calculate if you can afford something, coming up with a budget, etc is essential.
 
I have already named the Community Reinvestment Act, which has been amended in a series of acts, as discussed in the Wikipedia discussion of the CRA to which I referred you. I also referred to the new act, i.e. the Dodd Frank "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, enacted in response to the meltdown.

I was referring to the laws that require banks to make bad loans to poor people. You cannot seem to name those laws.
 
I was referring to the laws that require banks to make bad loans to poor people. You cannot seem to name those laws.

They require banks to make loan in the neighborhood inhabited by the poor. Sorry you cannot connect the dots.
 
They require banks to make loan in the neighborhood inhabited by the poor. Sorry you cannot connect the dots.

So your claim is that rich people living in "poor" neighborhoods are not creditworthy.

Sorry, those dots do not connect.
 
So your claim is that rich people living in "poor" neighborhoods are not creditworthy.

Sorry, those dots do not connect.

They were not the ones who defaulted on their mortgages.
 
They were not the ones who defaulted on their mortgages.

Of course not.

And yet, you claim that the Great Recession happened because banks were "forced" to make good loans to these creditworthy people! Whom you admit did not default on their loans!!!

Sorry, ben, but it is impossible to carry on a conversation with you. There is no logic in your thoughts whatsoever. You imagine laws which do not exist, causing effects which you then deny when challenged. But you insist that your original premise remains correct, even while you admit that everything you have based it upon is false.

That is the modern Republican Party platform. Senseless legislation, based on hatred of certain Americans, rather than evidence, reason, or logic. Your party seeks to empower certain Americans over certain other Americans, based on emotion and not justice. Your party seeks power through the exploitation of bigotry and fear - not the egalitarian principles upon which this nation is based. Your party seeks to tear down the nation, not pull it together.

I hope the day comes when Republicans are ashamed of their role in the civil rights movement; their role in immigration reform, their role in the promotion of income inequality; their role in the denial of science, their role in the destruction of the environment; their role in the gay rights movement. One day, those chickens will come home to roost.
 
Of course not.

And yet, you claim that the Great Recession happened because banks were "forced" to make good loans to these creditworthy people! Whom you admit did not default on their loans!!!

Sorry, ben, but it is impossible to carry on a conversation with you. There is no logic in your thoughts whatsoever. You imagine laws which do not exist, causing effects which you then deny when challenged. But you insist that your original premise remains correct, even while you admit that everything you have based it upon is false.

That is the modern Republican Party platform. Senseless legislation, based on hatred of certain Americans, rather than evidence, reason, or logic. Your party seeks to empower certain Americans over certain other Americans, based on emotion and not justice. Your party seeks power through the exploitation of bigotry and fear - not the egalitarian principles upon which this nation is based. Your party seeks to tear down the nation, not pull it together.

I hope the day comes when Republicans are ashamed of their role in the civil rights movement; their role in immigration reform, their role in the promotion of income inequality; their role in the denial of science, their role in the destruction of the environment; their role in the gay rights movement. One day, those chickens will come home to roost.

I am sorry that you do not understand. Where did you get the idea that the meltdown was caused by loans to rich people in poor neighborhoods? The problem was in variable rate mortgages to people who could not handle the payments when interest rate started to rise. The banks were required to make those loans by Federal law requiring loans in poor neighborhoods. If the banks could have limited the loans to less poor people, the meltdown would not have occurred.
 
Where did you get the idea that the meltdown was caused by loans to rich people in poor neighborhoods?

The law that you claim caused the Great Recession (the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977) requires only that banks make loans to creditworthy people, regardless of their street address. You keep pointing to this law as a root cause of the Great Recession - that banks were forced into making loans to people in "poor" neighborhoods. Since the only people getting loans in "poor" neighborhoods as a result of this law were creditworthy people who live there, the only possible interpretation of your claim is that you believe that these sound loans triggered the "panic" of which you speak.

Which, of course, makes no sense whatsoever.


The problem was in variable rate mortgages to people who could not handle the payments when interest rate started to rise. The banks were required to make those loans by Federal law requiring loans in poor neighborhoods.

But the only people getting loans in "poor" neighborhoods were those who were creditworthy, at least as required by the CRA of 1977. So, if banks were making loans to non-creditworthy people in these neighborhoods, that is a problem with the banks, not the law.

If the banks were marketing variable interest rate loans to people who could not afford variable interest rate loans, that is a problem with the banks, not the law.


If the banks could have limited the loans to less poor people, the meltdown would not have occurred.

Finally we get to your real (and astoundingly dishonest) argument.

You keep trying to make us believe that the CRA of 1977 forces banks to make inappropriate loans to non-creditworthy minorities, which IT MOST EMPHATICALLY DOES NOT, except in your fantasies. You want banking regulation to based on your paranoid delusions, rather than reality. You want banking regulation to be based on bigotry and prejudice, rather than the creditworthiness of borrowers. You want minorities to be cut out of participation in the American economy, based on the ethnicity of the neighborhoods in which they live. I submit that that is a spectacularly bad idea for America.

You fabricate nonexistent laws so that you can blame the Great Recession on minorities and the laws which protect these minorities from injustice. You advocate abuse of these people as necessary to the economic health of (part of) the nation.

I find such thinking detestable. I do not believe it necessary to abuse any American in order for all Americans to prosper. In fact, I am quite certain that you hold back the progress of all Americans which you hold back the progress of any American. Blacks, Latinos, immigrants, and the poor did not cause the Great Recession. Protecting these people from injustice did not cause the Great Recession. It is not necessary for minorities to suffer in order for rich, white, straight, Protestant men to remain rich, white, straight, Protestant, and male.
 
The banks made plenty of bad loans, but as stated, it had nothing to do with race. Plenty of white people took out loans they could not afford.
 
One of my sisters got a predatory loan for her marble palace on her private mountain - She's Stanford undergrad, Boalt hall, her hubby is Dartmouth undergrad Harvard Law, you'd have thunk they'd have known better, of course the bank was lying - and they could pay their $7000.00/month mortgage, and there were lawsuits and nastiness and in the end, they got out of it. I wonder how many white people without expensive law degrees had the same luck?
 
Lol at this thread. I don't even know where to start.

If you want to live in a place with big government that rewards people for not working but punishes those who work & small businesses with high taxes, regulations that make it difficult for businesses to thrive and create jobs...........where cost of living is so high that you will probably be a renter for the rest of your life (unless you're one of the 1%)...........move to a blue state.

If you want to live in a place with limited government and less rewards for people who don't work BUT more opportunities for those willing to work hard, less taxes, fewer regulations and fewer burdens on businesses............and a place where you can make enough money to own your own home AND take vacations to visit the blue states when you want............move to a red state.

There's a reason why "red states" like Texas are stealing all of California's jobs.

Lol at TX Beau who likely moved from CA to TX probably for work reasons and yet espouses the same anti-business policies that drove his job out of California in the first place. :lol:
 
Yeah, We're all from Texas, and don't you live with your parents? Are you really blaming that on California?
 
Yeah, We're all from Texas, and don't you live with your parents? Are you really blaming that on California?

I want to move to Dallas and find me a Texan boyfriend.......I don't like it here in California :(
 
I think you'd get a stiffy for some roughneck rough trade, for that you'll need to be in Midland/Odessa. Think of it, sweaty, scruffy blue collar types isolated for weeks on end, needy, lookin' to burn through their paychecks at the most convenient honkytonk they can find...

The drama writes itself.
 
Back
Top