in order

two wars - 9/11 and the government's (under Bush leadership) choice of reaction

tax cuts - more government policy (under Bush leadership)

financial and housing collapse - corporate greed, or more specifically, taking advantage of policies intended to assist more people by purposely misleading people instead(believing they would be legally able to force more money from them through interest rates,,,)

cost of living rise compared to living wage stalemate - this is harder to pinpoint to any one event or time period,, basically as outsourcing and automation have increased, jobs have been lost and employers have been able to employ for a lower wage while continuing to increase profits,,,

Here is your proof. Clinton made it easier for people with no money to get credit and not only that but he also made it easier for banks to operate secretly. He reduced how often we viewed to banks info and he redistributed the wealth to minority's and women.

BOOM! They're is your proof!

Regulatory changes 1995

In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[55] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36]

By early 1995, the proposed CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process to date, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results.[56] The CRA examination process itself was reformed to incorporate the pending changes.[40] Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings was made available via web page for public review as well.[36] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also moved to revise its regulation structure allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.[57]

During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act.[58]

Niskanen's, and other respondents to the proposed changes, voiced their concerns during the public comment & testimony periods in late 1993 through early 1995. In response to the aggregate concerns recorded by then, the Federal financial supervisory agencies (the OCC, FRB, FDIC, and OTS) made further clarifications relating to definition, assessment, ratings and scope; sufficiently resolving many of the issues raised in the process. The agencies jointly reported their final amended regulations for implementing the Community Reinvestment Act in the Federal Register on May 4, 1995. The final amended regulations replaced the existing CRA regulations in their entirety.[59] (See the notes in the "1995" column of Table I. for the specifics)

Legislative changes 1999

In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced in 1998 by Senator Phil Gramm but it was unable to complete the legislative process into law. Resistance to enacting the 1998 bill, as well as the subsequent 1999 bill, centered around the legislation's language which would expand the types of banking institutions of the time into other areas of service but would not be subject to CRA compliance in order to do so. The Senator also demanded full disclosure of any financial "deals" which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion".[60]

In the fall of 1999, Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer prevented another impasse by securing a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton Administration by agreeing to amend the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" (12 U.S.C. ch.16) to allow banks to merge or expand into other types of financial institutions. The new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's FDIC related provisions, along with the addition of sub-section § 2903(c) directly to Title 12, insured any bank holding institution wishing to be re-designated as a financial holding institution by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System would also have to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect.[61]

At the same time the G-L-B Act's changes to the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" would now allow for bank expansions into new lines of business, non-affiliated groups entering into agreements with these bank or financial institutions would also have to be reported as outlined under the newly added section to Title 12, § 1831y. (CRA Sunshine Requirements), satisfying Sen. Gramm's concerns.[62][63]

In conjunction with the above "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" changes, smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance by the addition of §2908. (Small Bank Regulatory Relief) directly to Chapter 30, (the existing CRA laws), itself. The 1999 Act also mandated two studies to be conducted in connection with the "Community Reinvestment Act":[64]

* the first report by the Federal Reserve, to be delivered to Congress by March 15, 2000, is a comprehensive study of CRA to focus on default and delinquency rates, and the profitability of loans made in connection with CRA;[65]
* the second report to be conducted by the Treasury Department over the next two years, is intended to determine the impact of the Act on the provision of services to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and people, as intended by CRA.[66]

On signing the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act", President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[67]

LOL ok , I cant keep repeating myself.

Here you go ....AGAIN!


Over the last 30 years, environmentalists have become the most powerful lobby in history. This has happened for two reasons: They have many, many ultra-rich backers in the urban and suburban socialist elite. And they get free, favorable media coverage for any crisis they wish to declare. This media coverage is worth tens of billions of dollars in free advertising every year. Ecologists have used their power to restrict the harvesting of natural resources for decades now, pushing up the price for consumers, because reduced supply causes an increase in price through the law of supply and demand. Oil and timber are particular commodities that enviros have been restricting.

Conservative response: Use our natural resources wisely for the common good. Do not deny access so that an elite minority of backpackers and birdwatchers can feel satisfied, while average "working" citizens, along with "the poor", pay more for housing and gasoline.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, goes the old saying. Indeed it is. Throughout history, heavily taxed economies have suffered, while lightening tax loads has in every single case produced more wealth, and more evenly distributed wealth. Average Americans, including "working families", are being made poorer by relentless taxation. The money that he/she already has in his/her pocket is disappearing. This is a travesty. And ruthless taxation of private business is preventing those businesses from paying their workers better wages, or accumulating capital to modernize their plants and ultimately employ more workers. Meanwhile media liberals insistently call for higher taxes, which equal wage cuts (impoverishment) for "workers".

Conservative response: Lower taxes and reduce government spending. It's really simple.

You have posted a long portion of an article without demonstrating how it supports your opinion.

For example, what is it about the passage or amendments of the 'Sunshine' Act or 'Community Reinvestment Act' or 'Gramm-Leech-Bliley Act', or 'Federal Deposit Insurance Act' that lead you to your opinions.

You have to be more specific. I mean if you're trying to blame 'something' on 'someone' we need to be able to make the connections between what you think is the problem and who or what is responsible for the problem.

Clearly, a president does not have the power to write law, but only sign legislation into law and on rare occasions to veto it.

That legislative process is not supposed to be primarily lead by the 'individual opinions' of those sitting in the House or Senate. In fact the process gives ample opportunity for all political views to be expressed before a bill is brought up for a vote.

I don't particularly agree with some of the fomalities involved, nor the unethical mistreatment of the rules that some would invoke. For example, the filibuster was never meant to be used as a 'common' tool to prevent consideration of, or ongoing, discussion/debate over perceived issues bill. But that is how Republicans have used it. STOP THE MACHINERY, until we are in control. That's not acting in the best interest of our country, that's blackmailing an entire voting population.

But I don't think that goes to the heart of the issue(s) you want to point out - you simply have not made those issues clear. So try again.

Obviously, you have an opinion but copying and pasting what other people have written only demonstrates that you have adopted someone elses opinion. To make it your own, you need to show the relevency of how the facts presented in the writing support your OWN opinion.

What I'm pointing out is that it makes for a more constructive debate when the person presenting the opinion is acturally present to defend the reasoning behind the opinion.

LOL so because I copy paste it can't be my opinion? No, I work SMARTER not harder. I look for the information THAT I ALREADY KNOW IS TRUE. And I copy and paste it instead of re writing it so you feel better.
You see I posses this uncanny ability to look at information and then research it and recognize the truth.

You have a great vocabulary and are capable of coming off intelligent but your post is empty of meaning or substance. You ask questions to which the answers are already available. If you knew what the Community reinvestment act was you would know why I brought it up. But you don't. You just can't stand the fact that I am right.

LMAO!!! Is that what you think? Then explain Austin and Dallas and Houston . You don't know anything about Texas do you? We are VERY conservative and THAT'S WHY WE ARE THRIVING! We give tax breaks to businesses and make it easy for them to businesses! We don't allow liberal CRAP to interfere with our ability to make money!!!!!!

You disagree PROVE IT. Show me a list like I showed you! Show me the liberal cities above the conservative cities and also make sure they have not declined either!

The Texas economy, the world’s 11th-largest, continues to fare better than those of many other states.

Ok so when you are talking about the housing market and the financial industry, and the rise in the cost of living you are talking about things that I already showed you. I showed you how those problems came to be. The problem is that you have not given a REASON as to why the problems came to be. SOMETHING happened and CAUSED this problem. So since you disagree what's the reason? What caused it?

There are many reasons and causes of poverty. Its clear, to those who recognize it, that the greatest contributor to poverty is oppression. Oppression comes from many directions and through many sources, but they seem to have common threads.

There is a group, usually some sort of majority, in power and through that power a sense of privilege is derived. Social constructs are built around and for the benefit of the group in power. Eventually the group in power no longer recognizes thier own privilege, which only exists through the oppression of others.

Examples:
gender - as women have had to battle the oppression of their male
counterparts.
race - becasue genetic physical characteristics can set people up as
a minorty and thus give rise to the priviledge of the
majority to oppress them.

There are, of course others but gender and, as another poster has indicated, "institutional racism" are the two greatest sources of oppression and thus of "White Male Privelege" within the United States.

Institutional Racism - exists within the structures and practices of of our institutions, which begin with our greatest authorities, our governments.

It is a fact that this is ongoing and it is a fact that it is extensive within our justice system.

It is also a fact that the group who instutiionalizes racism rarely recognize the oppressive nature of their actions, because they are "privileged", meaning they are rarely ever subjects of their own oppressive actions.

Therefore, if anyone 'pulls the race card' they may have a very legitimate reason for doing so and it would be wise to ask the person making the claim how they percieve racism in that particular case.

But that's just useful information in case someone DOES 'pull the race card'.

So tell me, since it's your opinion that Black people tend to live in congregated areas of poverty and maintain that space with an iron grip - can you explain why you think that has occurred?

Blacks do commit more crimes. LOL I won't waste my time with facts because you stare facts in the face and say they just ain't so.

Most black people even know that's true. LOL

uhhuh, quite literally, black people are CONVICTED of more 'violent' crimes, relatively speaking this is different than actually COMMITTING more crimes ( I wouldnt be able to say what 'race' holds that honor)


http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp

There are many reasons and causes of poverty. Its clear, to those who recognize it, that the greatest contributor to poverty is oppression. Oppression comes from many directions and through many sources, but they seem to have common threads.

There is a group, usually some sort of majority, in power and through that power a sense of privilege is derived. Social constructs are built around and for the benefit of the group in power. Eventually the group in power no longer recognizes thier own privilege, which only exists through the oppression of others.

Examples:
gender - as women have had to battle the oppression of their male
counterparts.
race - becasue genetic physical characteristics can set people up as
a minorty and thus give rise to the priviledge of the
majority to oppress them.

There are, of course others but gender and, as another poster has indicated, "institutional racism" are the two greatest sources of oppression and thus of "White Male Privelege" within the United States.

Institutional Racism - exists within the structures and practices of of our institutions, which begin with our greatest authorities, our governments.

It is a fact that this is ongoing and it is a fact that it is extensive within our justice system.

It is also a fact that the group who instutiionalizes racism rarely recognize the oppressive nature of their actions, because they are "privileged", meaning they are rarely ever subjects of their own oppressive actions.

Therefore, if anyone 'pulls the race card' they may have a very legitimate reason for doing so and it would be wise to ask the person making the claim how they percieve racism in that particular case.

But that's just useful information in case someone DOES 'pull the race card'.

So tell me, since it's your opinion that Black people tend to live in congregated areas of poverty and maintain that space with an iron grip - can you explain why you think that has occurred?

I didn't read the link, I don't have to. But does it also show how black people are sententanced, by the courts, by maximum penalties and that more black people recieve the death sentance for crimes against whites, that whites who commit the same crime against a black person?

Those are facts too, and don't require a lot of research to prove.

I didn't read the link, I don't have to. But does it also show how black people are sententanced, by the courts, by maximum penalties and that more black people recieve the death sentance for crimes against whites, that whites who commit the same crime against a black person?

Those are facts too, and don't require a lot of research to prove.

LOL ok , I cant keep repeating myself.

Here you go ....AGAIN!


Over the last 30 years, environmentalists have become the most powerful lobby in history. This has happened for two reasons: They have many, many ultra-rich backers in the urban and suburban socialist elite. And they get free, favorable media coverage for any crisis they wish to declare. This media coverage is worth tens of billions of dollars in free advertising every year. Ecologists have used their power to restrict the harvesting of natural resources for decades now, pushing up the price for consumers, because reduced supply causes an increase in price through the law of supply and demand. Oil and timber are particular commodities that enviros have been restricting.

Conservative response: Use our natural resources wisely for the common good. Do not deny access so that an elite minority of backpackers and birdwatchers can feel satisfied, while average "working" citizens, along with "the poor", pay more for housing and gasoline.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, goes the old saying. Indeed it is. Throughout history, heavily taxed economies have suffered, while lightening tax loads has in every single case produced more wealth, and more evenly distributed wealth. Average Americans, including "working families", are being made poorer by relentless taxation. The money that he/she already has in his/her pocket is disappearing. This is a travesty. And ruthless taxation of private business is preventing those businesses from paying their workers better wages, or accumulating capital to modernize their plants and ultimately employ more workers. Meanwhile media liberals insistently call for higher taxes, which equal wage cuts (impoverishment) for "workers".

Conservative response: Lower taxes and reduce government spending. It's really simple.

In the United States today, the organized environmental movement is represented by a wide range of organizations sometimes called non-governmental organizations or NGOs. These organizations exist on local, national, and international scales. Environmental NGOs vary widely in political views and in the amount they seek to influence the environmental policy of the United States and other governments.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/80917-report-five-percent-jump-in-lobbying-expenditures-last-year

The healthcare debate took up much of the oxygen in Washington last year. So not surprisingly, the pharmaceutical and health products industry spent a record amount last year — close to $266.8 million — on federal lobbying.
That is the biggest lobbying expenditure ever by a single industry in one year, according to the report.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-21/goldman-sachs-doubled-lobbying-expenses-amid-financial-revamp-sec-probe.html

New York-based Goldman, which paid $550 million last week to settle the SEC suit, spent $2.7 million to lobby during the first six months of 2010, more than double the $1.3 million it spent during the same period a year earlier, according to new congressional filings.

Bank of America Corp. spent $2 million, up 33 percent from $1.5 million spent during the first six months of 2009. Wells Fargo & Co.’s spending rose to $2.3 million from $1.4 million in 2009. Morgan Stanley spent $1.6 million, compared with $1.4 million a year earlier, though its second-quarter lobbying expenses were lower than a year ago.
The banks’ trade group, the Washington-based American Bankers Association, spent $4.2 million, up from $3.9 million.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/12/politics/main6202526.shtml

Makers of pharmaceuticals and health products spent $267 million lobbying, the most ever recorded by a single industry in a year. Business associations spent the second highest total, $183 million.

Among individual groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was easily the biggest spender at $145 million. Exxon Mobil Corp. was a distant second at $27 million.

>>> "Over the last 30 years, environmentalists have become the most powerful lobby in history."<<<

I can't quite make the connection between the beginning of the postings above and the lobbying of Environmentalist. So I'll I will try to make the connections and end with a questions that can lead making a better connection.

Lobbyists have varying degrees of influence which is leveraged contingent to current issues.

Our knowledge base with regards to the environment has developed through the efforts of science. The scientific evidence which supports the environmental movement has arisen independently throughout the world. Obviously environmental issues are a hot topic because these issues will effect the global population.

So makes sense that the influence of this international group of people would (and should) have a great deal of influence on the policies of any particular government regarding the focus of the groups issues.

But what does that have to do with how this relates to your opinion. Are you suggesting that “conservatives” are not at all concerned with the environmental effects of their policies, and that’s a good thing? Exactly how is that good?

According to Wiki:





If you’re interested in lobby “influence” try checking out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPA)

So when considering the groups of some of the most “financially influential” lobbyists, listed above, can you how their influence has affected policy, if the policy effected was due to conservative or liberal ideals and then show that effect has been counterproductive or productive, as the case may be?

Why not? If they are more likely to commit crimes and even more likely to repeat the offence why bother letting them out to hurt more people? They knew what they were getting into when they made the choice to commit the crimes in the first place.

I like how you refuse to read an actual study and choose to debate me anyway. How about this, I am not going to waste my time debating with you until you do read it

That way you are not wasting my time with blind accusations and denial.

I see a recurring theme here


my opinions and posts are educated and relevant, and yours arent

Im right right right and all those who disagree know it and hate it


interesting

after reading that I had to check the calendar to make sure it wasn't 1950..

excuses...excuses... and more excuses...