What this election is about.

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by steve4102

Yes, banks were and are forced to give loans to "poverty" level home buyers knowing they cannot be paid back. Look it up, start with Janet Reno.

False. Show me your proof if you have any.

[Old Grump]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

False. Show me your proof if you have any.

Goes back to Carter, the CRA, and ACORN. Unfortunately that was only part of the problem, the other part was the selling of sub prime loans to other banks, Fannie and Freddie. The breaking point came during the Clinton administration when his policies encouraging minority loans in spite of their ability to pay on top of the bubble of a housing boom then the Bush years of deficit spending to fight two wars was to much. The bubble burst and the banks went from bending over backwards to help people to eating the people alive and forcibly taking their assets with or without justification. There has been no balance. There is no single fault but ACORN pressure on banks sure did not help.

[Double D]

Clinton absolutely put a man in charge of fannie/freddie and told him to even the playing field. He wanted those who were less fortunate to have the same opportunity's as everyone else. His man Franklin Raines also walked away from that job a millionare.... many loans were made to folks who could not afford them. This was not the first of it but it was the absolute worst of it. It created the housing mess that we are still paying for to this very day. Look it up....there is plenty of proof.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

False. Show me your proof if you have any.

Look up , Community Reinvestment Act, 1977---Democrat Jimmy Carter

[steve4102]

These are the leading culprits who actually caused the subprime
mortgage collapse which then caused the current worldwide deep recession

1. Jimmy Carter pushed for and signed into law the
Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to
lower their standards so that previously unqualified
people could get a mortgage.

2. Bill Clinton then doubled-down on the Community Reinvestment
Act and greatly lowered mortgage standards to
allow a lot more unqualified borrowers to get loans.

3. Bill Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno, then intimidated
banks with threats of legal action if they
did not give loans to unqualified borrowers who
would not have the income to pay the loans back.

4. A member of the Clinton administration, Franklin Raines
was then put in charge of Fannie Mae by Bill Clinton. Fannie
Mae bought up a majority of the bad loans made by
banks to unqualified borrowers. Raines then falsified Fannie
Mae financial reports so he could collect bonuses
which totaled over $90 million for 5 years.

5. Senator Chris Dodd, head of the Senatorial Financial
Committee, suppressed efforts by President
George W. Bush and congressional Republicans to
rein in the corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
He got a very favorable loan by a bank associated
with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He got large political
campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac.

6. Barney Frank, head of the House of Representatives
Banking Committee, also suppressed efforts by President
George W. Bush and Congressional Republicans to
investigate corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

7. Barack Obama, while he was an attorney, filed lawsuits
against banks on behalf of ACORN in order to
force banks to give loans to people who could not afford
to pay them back. Obama, while he was a U.S.
Senator, also suppressed efforts by President George
W. Bush and Republican Congressmen to investigate
and rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[markfh]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

What? banks forced to make bad loans? Not on this planet. But then, if you are calling Democrates "demonrats" I would not expect objective fact checking.

Well, I would respond but while at work that has been taken care of for me. Maybe your "fact checking" needs a little tweaking.

I will admit that I'm not the most objective person when it comes to demonrats but they earned my contempt when I was in Nam and have done nothing but get worse since.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by markfh

Well, I would respond but while at work that has been taken care of for me. Maybe your "fact checking" needs a little tweaking.

I will admit that I'm not the most objective person when it comes to demonrats but they earned my contempt when I was in Nam and have done nothing but get worse since.

Thank you for your service.

[45Auto]

The sub prime crisis is a big part of what brought the world economy down.

The sub prime crisis took place because lending institutions stopped checking the employment and credit history of applicants. No one in the govt. encouraged lending institutions to stop checking out applicants, it was something lenders/investors invented all on their own. They wanted these loans so they could bundle them and sell them to investors as "mortgage backed securities."

The sub prime crisis took place during the Bush II administration. This was a time when regulations were relaxed and what few regulators we had were strongly encouraged to say and do nothing.

Blaiming the govt program which encouraged American home ownership is a fantasy invented by the lending/investing institutions who screwed things up. Great propaganda!

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

The sub prime crisis is a big part of what brought the world economy down.

The sub prime crisis took place because lending institutions stopped checking the employment and credit history of applicants. No one in the govt. encouraged lending institutions to stop checking out applicants, it was something lenders/investors invented all on their own. They wanted these loans so they could bundle them and sell them to investors as "mortgage backed securities."

The sub prime crisis took place during the Bush II administration. This was a time when regulations were relaxed and what few regulators we had were strongly encouraged to say and do nothing.

Blaiming the govt program which encouraged American home ownership is a fantasy invented by the lending/investing institutions who screwed things up. Great propaganda!

False.


Facts.

Back in the early Clinton years, the big public debate was over Hillary Clinton's controversial plan to overhaul the healthcare system. But the Clintons had another major agenda item that was hardly noticed at the time: to aggressively promote homeownership for racial minorities.

Based on a flawed study by the Boston Fed in 1992 (coauthored by an economist friend of Hillary), the Democrats claimed that minority homeownership rates were being held back by "racist" banking practices. The study found that minorities had a higher rejection rate for home loan applications than the general public. Without providing any direct evidence, the authors simply assumed that the underlying cause must be institutional racism in the banking industry.

Common sense tells us, however, that racist lending practices would backfire and harm no one except the very banks, if any, that engaged in such practices. If some banks were willing to pass up good business opportunities in order to deny loans to minorities, other banks would certainly be more than happy to step in and take the business. And if all white-owned banks were racist, a golden opportunity would exist for wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) to open banks in under-served areas and do a booming business with little effort. Any wealthy entertainer or athlete, such as Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, or any of hundreds of other wealthy athletes, could easily sponsor such a bank, for example. To believe that racist banks can stop qualified minorities from getting loans in this day and age, one must believe that (1) all white-owned banks are racist, and (2) no wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) are willing to fill the void and make lots of easy money while providing badly needed services to minority communities.

But the Clintons and many other Democrats apparently believed such economic nonsense. To remedy the alleged racism at banks, they strengthened the "anti-redlining" regulations of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had originally been passed during the Carter years, and they instituted an aggressive campaign that forced lenders to abandon their established underwriting criteria and drastically lower their standards to accommodate minorities who would not otherwise qualify for a home loan.

Key figures in the matter were Attorney General Janet Reno and her Deputy, none other than Eric Holder. They aggressively intimidated banks with threats of prosecution, lawsuits, stiff fines, and regulatory roadblocks to expansion and mergers. They paid little attention to actual lending practices and underwriting criteria, focusing instead on the end results in terms of percentages of minority loans approved. It mattered not whether the lenders were actually discriminating on the basis of race or whether minorities in general simply had worse credit histories (statistics show that they do). It was classic "affirmative action" for home loans.

Reno aggressively prosecuted several banks for "racist" lending practices, and she also encouraged private lawsuits against banks. One such lawsuit was filed against Citibank by a little-known community organizer and civil-rights lawyer named Barack Obama. Other government agencies also embarked on witch-hunts, including the Comptroller of Currency, the President's Fair Housing Council, and the Inter-agency Task Force on Fair Lending, the latter two having been set up by the Clinton administration specifically to harass banks. They even pressured some banks to open offices in dangerous neighborhoods.

With the US Attorney General and several other government agencies pressuring them to give more loans to minorities, banks and other lenders had no choice but to figure out ways to lower their underwriting standards. They drastically reduced or eliminated minimum down payments, increased limits on debt-to-income ratio, and started counting unemployment checks and food stamps as "income"! Then there were the infamous "NINJA" loans (no income, no job, no assets -- no problem). It was financial insanity run amok -- forced on lenders by the authority of the US government.

Not surprisingly, the reckless lending standards created the largest housing bubble in history. The bubble masked the underlying problem for several years. As long as housing prices were appreciating at a sufficient rate, the problem was not apparent and did not seem particularly urgent, certainly not to the general public. The unqualified buyers who got in early enough did reasonably well. As long as their property value had appreciated sufficiently they could always sell at a profit, or refinance, and not face default and foreclosure. But the unqualified buyers who got in later lost their homes and ended up much worse off than they would have been had traditional, uncoerced banking practices been permitted. It was a classic case of the unintended consequences of bad economic policy -- ultimately harming the very minorities it was intended to help.

In 1995, HUD (The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development) authorized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase mortgage-backed securities that included subprime and other risky CRA home loans. Since Fannie and Freddie are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), this unprecedented move was widely interpreted by banks and Wall Street as implied government backing of subprime mortgages. Though hardly noticed at the time, this development effectively shifted the liability for loan defaults from lenders to taxpayers. By relieving lenders of financial risk for loan defaults, it strongly encouraged them to give more loans to unqualified applicants. As if all that weren't bad enough, it also started the whole secondary market for subprime mortgages, which ended with the massive failures and subsequent bailouts of financial giants such as AIG and Citigroup. Had Clinton not started this bogus "investment" policy back in 1995, the massive TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailouts in 2008 would have been completely unnecessary.

Eventually the housing bubble burst, but not until around 2006 or 2007. By 2008 it brought the entire financial system to its knees, and since the Republicans had the White House at that time, the Democrats and the "mainstream" media were able to pin the brunt of the political blame on them. The general public was hardly aware of the historical roots of the problem, and the party in power was assumed to be responsible, as usual. The general public tends to naively assume that the party in power has full control of the economy and is completely unencumbered by existing laws, regulations, and policies that were in place before they were elected. In the case of the subprime mortgage crisis, that was a very bad assumption.

The Republicans were not completely innocent in the matter, but they were certainly not the driving force behind the subprime mortgage meltdown and the subsequent financial crisis. President Bush promoted legitimate homeownership, but he also caved in to the Democrats' racial demagoguery and "went along" with their program to some extent. However, when Bush and the Republican Congress tried to actually head off the subprime mortgage crisis before it was too late, the Democrats opposed them fiercely.

When the Republicans attempted to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, for example, the Democrats called them racists, as usual, and thwarted their efforts by filibustering with only 45 votes in the Senate. (A filibuster allows the minority party to block legislation in the US Senate with only 40 of 100 votes.) Hence, the Democrats prevailed even though the Republicans had the Presidency and controlled both house of Congress. But the general public simply assumes that the party in power must be responsible, and the Democrats managed to perpetrate the blatant lie that Republican opposition to stronger regulation was at the root of the problem.

Democratic Congressman Barney Frank and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, along with nearly all other Democrats in Congress, opposed the Republicans initiatives to reform Fannie and Freddie, insisting repeatedly that those government sponsored enterprises were in sound financial condition and functioning as intended. Many Democrats claimed that Republicans simply wanted to suppress minority homeownership. It's all on record, both written and video. Dodd and Frank later became the primary architects of the massive Dodd-Frank banking reform Act that was signed into law by Obama. Yeah, those are the two guys who should be rewriting banking regulations! (Not surprisingly, their reform bill does nothing to reform Fannie and Freddie.)

Leftists talk about "greedy" banks and "predatory" lending practices, but it was the Democrats who had actually forced banks against their will to recklessly provide home loans to unqualified applicants, many of whom later lost their homes to foreclosure. Before the housing bubble burst, Bill Clinton's website proudly touted his accomplishments in promoting minority homeownership. After the bubble burst, that material was scrubbed and replaced with material blaming Republicans and banks for the financial crisis and the ensuing major recession. As a community organizer, Barack Obama sued banks to force them to give risky loans to unqualified minorities. Later, as a US Senator, he joined in the Democrats' filibuster of the Republican attempts to reform the subprime mortgage industry. Yet he has the gall to routinely claim with a straight face that Republicans "drove the economy into a ditch." That sort of mendacity is perhaps to be expected from politicians, but we certainly don't have to fall for it.

The bottom line is that Democrats were the primary architects and the driving force behind the irresponsible banking practices that led to the subprime mortgage meltdown, the financial crisis, and the recession that resulted. But they managed to successfully pin the public blame on Republicans, and Barack Obama was elected as a result. If the Democrats are not finally held accountable in the next election, they will continue to wreck the US economy until it is unrecognizable as a free market, and the days of American prosperity will be over.

January 2012

[Double D]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

The sub prime crisis is a big part of what brought the world economy down.

The sub prime crisis took place because lending institutions stopped checking the employment and credit history of applicants. No one in the govt. encouraged lending institutions to stop checking out applicants, it was something lenders/investors invented all on their own. They wanted these loans so they could bundle them and sell them to investors as "mortgage backed securities."

The sub prime crisis took place during the Bush II administration. This was a time when regulations were relaxed and what few regulators we had were strongly encouraged to say and do nothing.

Blaiming the govt program which encouraged American home ownership is a fantasy invented by the lending/investing institutions who screwed things up. Great propaganda!

Wow, I cant believe how misinformed some people really are.

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by Double D

Wow, I cant believe how misinformed some people really are.

Nor can I! But when folks get all of their information from wall street controlled propaganda outlets it's not suprising.

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by steve4102

False.


Facts.

Back in the early Clinton years, the big public debate was over Hillary Clinton's controversial plan to overhaul the healthcare system. But the Clintons had another major agenda item that was hardly noticed at the time: to aggressively promote homeownership for racial minorities.

Based on a flawed study by the Boston Fed in 1992 (coauthored by an economist friend of Hillary), the Democrats claimed that minority homeownership rates were being held back by "racist" banking practices. The study found that minorities had a higher rejection rate for home loan applications than the general public. Without providing any direct evidence, the authors simply assumed that the underlying cause must be institutional racism in the banking industry.

Common sense tells us, however, that racist lending practices would backfire and harm no one except the very banks, if any, that engaged in such practices. If some banks were willing to pass up good business opportunities in order to deny loans to minorities, other banks would certainly be more than happy to step in and take the business. And if all white-owned banks were racist, a golden opportunity would exist for wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) to open banks in under-served areas and do a booming business with little effort. Any wealthy entertainer or athlete, such as Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, or any of hundreds of other wealthy athletes, could easily sponsor such a bank, for example. To believe that racist banks can stop qualified minorities from getting loans in this day and age, one must believe that (1) all white-owned banks are racist, and (2) no wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) are willing to fill the void and make lots of easy money while providing badly needed services to minority communities.

But the Clintons and many other Democrats apparently believed such economic nonsense. To remedy the alleged racism at banks, they strengthened the "anti-redlining" regulations of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had originally been passed during the Carter years, and they instituted an aggressive campaign that forced lenders to abandon their established underwriting criteria and drastically lower their standards to accommodate minorities who would not otherwise qualify for a home loan.

Key figures in the matter were Attorney General Janet Reno and her Deputy, none other than Eric Holder. They aggressively intimidated banks with threats of prosecution, lawsuits, stiff fines, and regulatory roadblocks to expansion and mergers. They paid little attention to actual lending practices and underwriting criteria, focusing instead on the end results in terms of percentages of minority loans approved. It mattered not whether the lenders were actually discriminating on the basis of race or whether minorities in general simply had worse credit histories (statistics show that they do). It was classic "affirmative action" for home loans.

Reno aggressively prosecuted several banks for "racist" lending practices, and she also encouraged private lawsuits against banks. One such lawsuit was filed against Citibank by a little-known community organizer and civil-rights lawyer named Barack Obama. Other government agencies also embarked on witch-hunts, including the Comptroller of Currency, the President's Fair Housing Council, and the Inter-agency Task Force on Fair Lending, the latter two having been set up by the Clinton administration specifically to harass banks. They even pressured some banks to open offices in dangerous neighborhoods.

With the US Attorney General and several other government agencies pressuring them to give more loans to minorities, banks and other lenders had no choice but to figure out ways to lower their underwriting standards. They drastically reduced or eliminated minimum down payments, increased limits on debt-to-income ratio, and started counting unemployment checks and food stamps as "income"! Then there were the infamous "NINJA" loans (no income, no job, no assets -- no problem). It was financial insanity run amok -- forced on lenders by the authority of the US government.

Not surprisingly, the reckless lending standards created the largest housing bubble in history. The bubble masked the underlying problem for several years. As long as housing prices were appreciating at a sufficient rate, the problem was not apparent and did not seem particularly urgent, certainly not to the general public. The unqualified buyers who got in early enough did reasonably well. As long as their property value had appreciated sufficiently they could always sell at a profit, or refinance, and not face default and foreclosure. But the unqualified buyers who got in later lost their homes and ended up much worse off than they would have been had traditional, uncoerced banking practices been permitted. It was a classic case of the unintended consequences of bad economic policy -- ultimately harming the very minorities it was intended to help.

In 1995, HUD (The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development) authorized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase mortgage-backed securities that included subprime and other risky CRA home loans. Since Fannie and Freddie are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), this unprecedented move was widely interpreted by banks and Wall Street as implied government backing of subprime mortgages. Though hardly noticed at the time, this development effectively shifted the liability for loan defaults from lenders to taxpayers. By relieving lenders of financial risk for loan defaults, it strongly encouraged them to give more loans to unqualified applicants. As if all that weren't bad enough, it also started the whole secondary market for subprime mortgages, which ended with the massive failures and subsequent bailouts of financial giants such as AIG and Citigroup. Had Clinton not started this bogus "investment" policy back in 1995, the massive TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailouts in 2008 would have been completely unnecessary.

Eventually the housing bubble burst, but not until around 2006 or 2007. By 2008 it brought the entire financial system to its knees, and since the Republicans had the White House at that time, the Democrats and the "mainstream" media were able to pin the brunt of the political blame on them. The general public was hardly aware of the historical roots of the problem, and the party in power was assumed to be responsible, as usual. The general public tends to naively assume that the party in power has full control of the economy and is completely unencumbered by existing laws, regulations, and policies that were in place before they were elected. In the case of the subprime mortgage crisis, that was a very bad assumption.

The Republicans were not completely innocent in the matter, but they were certainly not the driving force behind the subprime mortgage meltdown and the subsequent financial crisis. President Bush promoted legitimate homeownership, but he also caved in to the Democrats' racial demagoguery and "went along" with their program to some extent. However, when Bush and the Republican Congress tried to actually head off the subprime mortgage crisis before it was too late, the Democrats opposed them fiercely.

When the Republicans attempted to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, for example, the Democrats called them racists, as usual, and thwarted their efforts by filibustering with only 45 votes in the Senate. (A filibuster allows the minority party to block legislation in the US Senate with only 40 of 100 votes.) Hence, the Democrats prevailed even though the Republicans had the Presidency and controlled both house of Congress. But the general public simply assumes that the party in power must be responsible, and the Democrats managed to perpetrate the blatant lie that Republican opposition to stronger regulation was at the root of the problem.

Democratic Congressman Barney Frank and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, along with nearly all other Democrats in Congress, opposed the Republicans initiatives to reform Fannie and Freddie, insisting repeatedly that those government sponsored enterprises were in sound financial condition and functioning as intended. Many Democrats claimed that Republicans simply wanted to suppress minority homeownership. It's all on record, both written and video. Dodd and Frank later became the primary architects of the massive Dodd-Frank banking reform Act that was signed into law by Obama. Yeah, those are the two guys who should be rewriting banking regulations! (Not surprisingly, their reform bill does nothing to reform Fannie and Freddie.)

Leftists talk about "greedy" banks and "predatory" lending practices, but it was the Democrats who had actually forced banks against their will to recklessly provide home loans to unqualified applicants, many of whom later lost their homes to foreclosure. Before the housing bubble burst, Bill Clinton's website proudly touted his accomplishments in promoting minority homeownership. After the bubble burst, that material was scrubbed and replaced with material blaming Republicans and banks for the financial crisis and the ensuing major recession. As a community organizer, Barack Obama sued banks to force them to give risky loans to unqualified minorities. Later, as a US Senator, he joined in the Democrats' filibuster of the Republican attempts to reform the subprime mortgage industry. Yet he has the gall to routinely claim with a straight face that Republicans "drove the economy into a ditch." That sort of mendacity is perhaps to be expected from politicians, but we certainly don't have to fall for it.

The bottom line is that Democrats were the primary architects and the driving force behind the irresponsible banking practices that led to the subprime mortgage meltdown, the financial crisis, and the recession that resulted. But they managed to successfully pin the public blame on Republicans, and Barack Obama was elected as a result. If the Democrats are not finally held accountable in the next election, they will continue to wreck the US economy until it is unrecognizable as a free market, and the days of American prosperity will be over.

January 2012

Ok, so let's see what the above is saying: The lending crisis was caused by too much lending to unqualified minorities? What a fantasy. The fraud was to make loans, any loans, to bundle into Mortgage Backed Securities. To get these mortgages lending institutions were signing up anyone with a pulse - regardless of race. They would not even check to see if these folks had jobs. The conmen wanted to bundle those loans into securities and sell them to investors. They did these things to make lots of money, not to make nice with liberals. It's all about dishonesty and greed. The folks behind these clever scams got extremely rich, and the rest of us are trying to clean up the mess.

[steve4102]

I should take my own advice and not waste my time confusing a Socialist/Liberal with the facts, but I will post one more link just in case you feel the need to wake up.

Here are plenty of links to Janet Reno, Bill Clinton, Obama and many more left wing Socialists that cause the meltdown. Pick one and read it, or not, but the facts are out there if you choose to read them.

http://www.google.com/search?q=janet...hrome&ie=UTF-8

http://www.google.com/search?q=obama...w=1024&bih=673


http://www.google.com/search?q=obama...w=1024&bih=673


http://www.google.com/search?q=obama...w=1024&bih=673

http://www.google.com/search?q=obama...w=1024&bih=673

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Exactly. And of course, no surprise, crickets on the comeback. It's tough to think outside their little box.

Well, they're going to be very disappointed. R is going to sell you down the river. His record shows it (for the factually inclined), and his rhetoric shows it (also, for the factually inclined).

I never EVER got an answer back on "how Romney is going to make things better" (in another thread) either. It's all about "he's no O." The answer is, he can't and he won't. He'll spend his four years blaming Obama, and continue to spend money we don't have, further driving us into depression, getting us into more wars/conflicts, and acting the all around moron in office.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by steve4102

I should take my own advice and not waste my time confusing a Socialist/Liberal with the facts,

If you can't discuss without personal attacks, then, maybe it's time for a MOD to shut you up.

Give it a rest Steve. What's with the personal attacks? Just because someone doesn't agree with you on EVERY point, doesn't make them a liberal or a socialist.

Grow up.

[Double D]

Originally Posted by graehaven

If you can't discuss without personal attacks, then, maybe it's time for a MOD to shut you up.

Give it a rest Steve. What's with the personal attacks? Just because someone doesn't agree with you on EVERY point, doesn't make them a liberal or a socialist.

Grow up.

You just joined in on the personal attacks.....leave it to the mods to tell him to "shut up" or "grow up"...same thing....

Posting the facts should be sufficient enough. If he doesnt get it, there isnt much you can do.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by graehaven

The BIG one, the one I cannot get over, is all the gun owners who veritably WORSHIP Romney, when he is the WORST Repub candidate in history on guns. He WILL ban them if he has the chance - as proven by his record..... a record, which apparently doesn't mean much to people. Unbelievable.

.

Governor Romney's record in a nutshell.

During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.

Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006. A summary of this legislation follows.

This is a perfect example of don’t believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:

1. Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.

For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.

2. Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.

3. Extended the term of the state’s firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.

4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.

5. Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.

6. Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.

7. Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.

8. Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver’s license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3” x 4”.

9. Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.


Link.
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

[45silverback]

Originally Posted by steve4102

I should take my own advice and not waste my time confusing a Socialist/Liberal with the facts, but I will post one more link just in case you feel the need to wake up.

My Old Man used to say... "Don't argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience"...

Then there was the whole Biblical thing about "Casting your pearls before swine."

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by 45silverback

My Old Man used to say... "Don't argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience"...

Then there was the whole Biblical thing about "Casting your pearls before swine."

"Pearls before swine" and "casting pearls" refer to a quotation from Matthew 7:6 "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." in Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, implying that scriptural truth or knowledge (pearls) should not be put in front of people (or in this case, swine) who do not appreciate their value.

[Double D]

Originally Posted by 45silverback

My Old Man used to say... "Don't argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience"...

Then there was the whole Biblical thing about "Casting your pearls before swine."

No need to throw the "idiot" thing out there...we have already corrected the name calling.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by graehaven

If you can't discuss without personal attacks, then, maybe it's time for a MOD to shut you up.

Give it a rest Steve. What's with the personal attacks? Just because someone doesn't agree with you on EVERY point, doesn't make them a liberal or a socialist.

Grow up.

First, I don't think calling a Socialist a Socialist is name calling and I don't think they would either.. I am not offended if someone calls me a "Conservative" or a "Republican" or a "Right Winger" or a "Capitalist" or even an A$$ hole as that sometimes fits well too. I would think that a Liberal/Socialist would be as proud to have these labels attached to them as I am proud of my labels , cept for the a$$ hole one.

Second, if it walks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck......It's a Duck.

[45silverback]

Originally Posted by steve4102

"Pearls before swine" and "casting pearls" refer to a quotation from Matthew 7:6 "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." in Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, implying that scriptural truth or knowledge (pearls) should not be put in front of people (or in this case, swine) who do not appreciate their value.

I know. That was my point.

[45silverback]

Originally Posted by Double D

No need to throw the "idiot" thing out there...we have already corrected the name calling.

Just quoting my Old Man... God rest his soul.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by 45silverback

Just quoting my Old Man... God rest his soul.

I don't care if you were quoting the Pope; name calling is not tolerated.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by steve4102

Governor Romney's record in a nutshell.

During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.

Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006. A summary of this legislation follows.

This is a perfect example of don’t believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:

1. Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.

For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.

2. Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.

3. Extended the term of the state’s firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.

4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.

5. Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.

6. Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.

7. Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.

8. Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver’s license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3” x 4”.

9. Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.


Link.
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

I couldn't care less about all the other goody-goody bull crap compromises that were made, he passed a permanent assault weapons ban, which does NOTHING to solve crime in ANY way.

If he would do it for Mass. then he WILL do it for the nation. That is the issue. Period. And if he says he won't, I don't believe him, and I'm not wrong for NOT believing him. He's a lying idiot and I won't respect a lying idiot.