Reporter Warns Staged Financial Crisis Part Of Fascist Coup

Originally posted by candide
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
Despite Clinton strengthening CRA, it originally came into effect in 1977. Over half of modern sub-prime loans come from mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. In fact, you may notice that lenders have not pointed a finger at CRA because there has not been a significant default rate for this class of loan.

Geee, thanks for pointing this out...The ins-n-outs of financing was all pretty new to me until I started reading this thread. I've been doing some research lately, but not finding much that really led to anything practical on a personal level. When you mentioned the CRA, I started doing some digging & found a bit of real practical information that would apply to me personally: I understood pretty much all that's been posted here so far & I wound up finding Monthly List of Banks Examined for CRA Compliance & I now know which bank I'm switching to in my local area!

Originally posted by sos37
I'll ask this about any president in office - what can the president do without the backing of Congress?

If there's any faith at all left in the Constitution (of which it seems exists in very small proportions in the government), just a read through Article 2 will describe what the Executive Branch can do and, even more importantly, what it cannot do.

Each Article (specifically Articles 1-3) delegates & describes what each delegated Powers each Branch of the government is allowed...Under expressed, specified restrictions. The rest of the Constitution also describes overall government Powers and limitations & is capped off with the Bill of Rights to express an incomplete list of the government to defend & uphold above all else. The Bill of Rights is worded expressly to deny government Power over any of those Amendments & the whole document is still a living document that has been expanding...For example, numerous times in American history, the US Supreme Court has been adding expressed Rights that never appeared as part of an Amendment, such as the Right to Travel Freely, the Right to engage in a Lawful Occupation to earn a living...And one that I consider to be very important, that the citizens' exercising of their Rights can never be converted to a crime! In fact, the only real limitation on the exercise of any/all Rights is that no one is allowed to violate the equal Rights of others in the doing!

BTW, I'm starting to see too much political bashing over Alex Jones & it's beginning to derail this thread. It's also on the verge of spilling over into other violations of ATS policies...Tone it down or the perpetrators could easily wind up banned. I'm no Mod, but this is just a friendly warning of the potential consequences here...

[edit on 25-9-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

Does anyone remember the S & L scandal ?

Who but John McCain was right in the middle of it.
And it only cost the tax payers 2.6 Billion dollars.

Read up on the info about this outrage or refresh
your memory at...

www.slate.com...

www.washingtonpost.com

Wall Street's Man in Washington

By Harold Meyerson
September 25, 2008

This past winter, when American banks were already scrambling for capital, foreign investors came to their rescue. Last November, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority put $7.5 billion into Citigroup. One month later, Merrill Lynch sold $4.4 billion worth of new stock to Temasek Holdings of Singapore, and Morgan Stanley sold a $5 billion stake to China Investment Corp. In January, Merrill Lynch issued $6.6 billion of preferred stock to Korea Investment Corp. and the Kuwait Investment Authority, among others.

These far-flung buyers had one thing in common: They aren't private concerns. Each is a sovereign wealth fund, investing its national treasury's money -- its citizens' money -- in an effort to help out the hemorrhaging banks of Wall Street.

But these were not charitable outlays. The citizens of Abu Dhabi, Singapore, China, Korea and Kuwait got something in return for their treasuries' aid packages to American finance. They got stock. They got an equity interest in those banks.

These may not, just now, seem like the shrewdest investments ever made. Still, all those East Asian and petro-state citizens will probably reap some long-term profits if their treasuries hang on to those shares in Bank of America-Merrill, or Citigroup, or Morgan Stanley and Whomever It Merges With.

Which, sadly, is more than can be said for American citizens in the deal that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson brought down from his Mount Sinai penthouse over the weekend. In Paulson's plan, the American public pours at least $700 billion of its money into purchasing the bad loans on Wall Street's books and gets -- well, it gets the thanks of a grateful Wall Street. It does not get any equity in return. To receive a return for their investment, Americans would have to become Chinese or Kuwaiti or Abu Dhabian; they would have to move to some country that accords a little more respect to the public's claim over its money.

During past financial crises, Americans did get something in return for the assistance their government proffered to Wall Street. As my American Prospect colleague Robert Kuttner has noted, when the Depression-era Reconstruction Finance Corp. (a bipartisan creation -- Herbert Hoover started it and Franklin Roosevelt continued it) poured $35 billion into American banks and corporations, it often became a preferred shareholder in those concerns and appointed members to those companies' boards to oversee their operations. Other quids offset the quos of the Resolution Trust Corp., which handled the savings and loan meltdown in the 1980s.

In Paulson's original proposal, by contrast, the Treasury secretary would write plenty of checks, unconstrained by any balances. Not surprisingly, Democrats in Congress have countered with a set of proposals to subject Treasury to stricter oversight and congressional accountability, to provide more direct relief to beleaguered homeowners, to restrict the pay of executives at companies that dump their bad deals on the Treasury, and to provide the public with an equity interest in the companies that taxpayers bail out. Paulson has reportedly acceded to more oversight and some more help for homeowners but is still defending the rights of CEOs to pay themselves astronomical sums and opposing efforts to give Americans a share of the companies whose bad loans they are assuming.

On one Sunday talk show, Paulson dismissed the idea of reining in top executives' pay. "If we design [the bailout] so it's punitive and so institutions aren't going to participate," he said, "this won't work the way we need it to work."

That depends on your definition of "we," does it not? In recent years, Wall Street salaries and bonuses have soared as investment banks peddled ever more profitable schemes that enabled Americans to take on debt -- an activity of no discernable social utility and, in fact, of some peril

WHEN CORPORATE POWER AND GOVERNMENT COMBINE IT IS CALLED FASCISM.

I'm just curious as to why isnt anyone noticing that the DEMOCRATS got us into this mess years ago during Clinton's term, by forcing banks to give mortgage loans to anyone that can stand and breathe, without checking their credit or even knowing if they would be able to pay off the loan! And lets not forget the numerous times McCain AND BUSH wanted to reform Fannie Mae and AIG and Lehman brothers but were BLOCKED by DEMOCRATS in Congress from doing so. Bush said we were heading into trouble in 2003. McCain said we are heading into BIG trouble in 2005, and no one listened. Now here we are, and the democrats still refuse to acknowledge the fact that its their fault.
By the way, another fun fact. Did you know that three former CEOs of Fannie Mae are advisers to Obama? Be sure to check the campaign donations from Fannie Mae and to who they all went to and how much.

And lets be honest. You all know that if there was a single Republican involved in this, that person would have been tarred and feathered and destroyed by the Obama News Networks and by every Democrat in DC. But as we see, silence. Democrats got us into this, now we want them to get us out?

reply to post by GenRadek


The Democratic and Republican parties are both owned and operated by the international banking cartel. They have their own agents strategically placed within both parties to achieve their ends. Their lobbyists (AIPAC being the most powerful and influential) further achieve these ends. The lobbyists are the source of cash flow to ensure these ends are met.

Both parties need to be abolished so one may vote for another based on the other's clear plan for the future of their jurisdiction. Never put faith in parties. They are merely tools in the trade designed to divide and conquer a country politically thereby stonewalling any 'progress' while the banksters achieve their end of NWO.

Everyone go Independent without any party affiliation and you regain much of what has been hijacked within our Constitution, Bill of Rights and perhaps allow Americans to join together to ABOLISH the unconstitutional Fed. Reserve run by the same banking cartel.

Yes, this is a coup. Its being drawn out bits here and bits there...for instance, the debates will take place, but i dont have much faith in this.
I still say that there will not be any elections.
Within 2 weeks i'd say we will know where we really stand.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Yes, this is a coup. Its being drawn out bits here and bits there...for instance, the debates will take place, but i dont have much faith in this.
I still say that there will not be any elections.
Within 2 weeks i'd say we will know where we really stand.

Another one of your Predictions?

HEY...Hello Americans...the Writing on the Constitution was saying " Government of the people, for the people and by the People" has been changed as "Government of the Banks, Wall Street and the rich people, for the latter and by the latter".

Nice aaaah ?

Plinius the Younger

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Because Alex Jones is a BIG MOUTH idito who does nothing but spread fear and lies and paranoia.

1. He does have a very big mouth
2. Your not paranoid if their really after you and if that realisation doesn't leave you at lease somewhat afraid your probably the idiot.

He is the little mans version of Bush but on a different levelt and in a different arena.

So basically his different? Well done genius.

Dont believe ANYTHING that guy spouts. He is true DIARRHEA of the mouth!!

Actually i do believe a whole lot he says as i figured it out from other sources. He could certainly say less and make his points but i wont let his personal failings prevent me from listening to what he has to say.

Especially with the bull horn LOL. What an idiot. He has to be one of the biggest spreaders of fear thats out there.

The biggest spreaders of fear , unlike Alex Jones, have access to the MSM and Alex isn't and could never be in their league however paranoid and irrational he may get. At least we can agree that the Bullhorn really, REALLY has to go.

Stellar

[edit on 28-9-2008 by StellarX]

reply to post by StellarX


Stellar, great to see you back ......

keep up your good posts, they are badly needed on this forum , which is so full of ignorant and arrogant americans