DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Hillary

Love her or hate her, I don't think she can be stopped this time.

Good piece on her: Can Hillary Clinton Escape Her Fame?

For people that don't do some research, she may be unstoppable.

For people that do research, she's as electable as my left pinky toe.

She's in the same vein as Mitt Romney and John McCain. Very safe bets that probably won't do well against a strong candidate.

The problem with that reasoning is that the GOP doesn't have one of those (strong candidate). So unless she get's hit from her own party again... I think she walks right into the Presidency.

It's hard to tell. I don't think the United States is ready for a woman president. Nor do I think we're particularly well adjusted for an "old" president. But I've highlighted these problems with her before.

I'm jaded when it comes to the presidency, and federal government. Any prominent national politician is bought off by corporate America through campaign donations.

As a staunch Republican and realist, it is all Hitlery in 2016. The welfare bunch is now the new majority.
They want and will keep "Santa Claus"(A democrat)in office at all cost.

As I have always said...
The Clinton's will just NEVER, EVER go away...EVER...

As someone who tends to vote Democrat, I just don't get it. If she gets the DEmocratic nod I will be disappointed

I agree with this, but the question remains, who is this strong candidate you speak of. I've not seen one yet that inspired confidence.

And unfortunately, no one does the research or cares to. Hillary as president is... I don't even know the words to use. No way I could EVER trust her and we'll have already endured two terms of Obama. Dark, dark days ahead.

Never underestimate the power of the Clinton Machine.
Never underestimate the power of the Bush Machine.

My opinion is we end up with a choice between Bush-Clinton.

YOU CALL THAT A CHOICE? If it involves another Bush, there is only one right answer... and IT'S NOT ANOTHER BUSH, he may not be W but he's still W's brother. How many times ca we go to the brink of total financial collapse? How many more war's can we fight because daddy did not get what he wanted? Only an idiot would put another Bush in the White House.

I'm not a huge fan of Hillary by a long shot. I don't want another Obama, some guy out of nowhere. I don't really want Hillary. I don't want a Tea Party Wing Nut. But I do know what I want...

I want somebody that is focused on affairs INSIDE our borders and looking to improve life for the working classes.

Choose.

She's trending on Facebook because she didn't tip at a Chipotle in Ohio. Has anyone ever tipped there? I might have thrown some change in the bowl, but I don't think I tipped paper money ever.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/239006-chipotle-manager-say-clinton-didnt-tip

I think I'll put a tip jar on my desk and see how much I get.

I'm going to put a tip jar on my nightstand.

I will remember that for next time.

How did they even make this a story, when in the article it even says that Clinton did not pay, that the person with her paid.

1) I don't think I have ever tipped at a fast food restaurant, other than maybe a a few coins I got as change.
2) If I am not paying I surely am not reaching into my wallet to tip at a FF place. At a sit down restaurant, sure, I'll offer to cover the tip if the other person is paying.

Don't quit your day job-

choice is only an illusion...

Well, it's a night job anyway. :-)

And my wife doesn't carry cash, so I'm out of luck regardless.

Rubio can beat her. He can win Florida and grab some of the Latino vote. Their VP will be a woman, regardless.

Now, will the GOP have the sense to nominate the 1 guy that stands a chance?

You do realize that the last financial collapse was due to the pressuring of the Clinton adminstration puttion pressure on banks to lend to not-credit worthy borrowers, right?

That is pretty ridiculous. Its fast food joint. I have never and will never tip on a fast food worker. However, if she believes they deserve $15 an hour, maybe she should have tipped them to compensate....just sayin'!

The worst of the worst loans were bank-approved 2002-2007. The most destructive financial instruments were at the peak in 2005/2006.

Clinton wasn't pressuring anyone. Neither was Bush.

This was a failure of banks and their own greed, many homeowners and investors as well. Banks weren't required to ignore the income-verification stage. They weren't required to re-sell these loans as great investment packages. Their underwriters had every right to deny people that did not meet criteria, and in fact, legally should have been doing so. Banks certainly wouldn't be settling lawsuits and paying Billions if they were complying with the law.

j/c

This election will once again be between the lesser of two evils. I'll have to wait until the other evil is revealed before I determine which is worse.

Probably make more with a swear jar.

Banks make money on payments being made to loans and interest charges. They dont make money on the actual loan, its the interest that is charged. Banks dont make money on giving out loans to anyone. Which is why banks make it hard to obtain loans. Banks do not want to lend money to low income families, on the premise they will not be able to pay it back. Why would the banks WANT to give loans to people that could not afford to pay them back??? Think about that for a minute....It just does not make sense.

FHA loans, CRA loans, all all government sponsered loans aimed at giving low income and under-developed areas loans to improve their housing/situation. The problem is these loans are very easy to obtain "credit-wise". I am a personal banker, when I see someone come into my office asking for one of these loans I have a huge smile on my face for a reason.

In 1995- Clinton used agencies like the NACA and NAACP to pressure banks into giving out CRA loans, and mortgages.


Link to Previous information

Heres another quote from [url=Business Week]http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html[/url]

You can go all the way back to the reagan, and somwhat the carter Administration to pin blame for this last recession. Deregulation led to what came about... written by banks... for banks...

Show me how giving out loans that cannot be paid back makes a bank profit?? No interest, no money

Used to be that way.

It changed. Banks were "allowed" and encouraged to give mortgages - even to people that had no proof of ability to repay.

Why would they do that?

For a simple example: A bank could loan to 10 different people. Say, 4 of them had good credit, 4 were questionable, and 2 stood no chance. The bank lends the money to each of the 10, packages those 10 loans together, sells the package to Fannie (or Freddie), bank gets their cut for doing the "work"......and they're off the hook on repayments.

Whoever, in return, bought that "package of loans" from the gov't. got the interest. Not the originating bank.

Why would bank B buy bank A's package of loans when some were bad? The gov't gauranteed the loan.

Thank you very much, this was the point I was getting at, the GOVERNMENT allowe this. The banks would not have done this if it wasnt for the GOVERNMENT promoting this.

Which goes back to my point, if the banks could only lend to those qualified, they would not lend to the not qualified. The banks found a way out of these crap loans because they KNEW and told the GOVERNMENT this was going to happen.

Heres a scenario....You have a 100,000 loan. Over the life in interest you are scheduled to make 130,000. If someone says ill give 105,000 for the rights to that loan, will you take it? A bank would say nope, no way. They know what their gonna get in the long run.

This topic has been discussed on here before.

The reason for the change in lending laws (if that's what they can be called), was so that "everyone can own a home."

I do not recall if it changed under Bush or Clinton - but regardless, CONGRESS changed the requirements of banks - lessened the requirements.

Bam - you're a bank. Put $5000 in your pocket today, or wait 30 years to get $130,000 - of which you're pretty sure you won't ever see?

Hey, here's a deal for you - you decide: Give me $100,000 so I can buy lottery tickets. You do. I promise to pay you $130,000 over 30 years (plus the principal). Joe blow comes along says "hey, I'll give you $5000 today if you sell me that contract."

You are pretty certain I won't win the lottery, and I won't be able to pay you the principal plus interest.

What do you do? Change your mind and not lend me the 100 grand? Hedge your bets on getting repaid with interest? Or put 5 grand in your pocket today?

However, with the way credit requirments were previously, you were pretty much certain you were going to get your money back. Because they were lending to responsible borrowers. Not just joe-schmo

Right.

I'm not in on/up on the discussion you were having with others.

You asked a question about why a bank would do something, I explained it as best as I could - not knowing you were talking about the fed bank, gov't., all that stuff.

Lots of bad loans had nothing to do with the Gov't: Jumbo loans, refinances, home equity, conventional. Plenty of loans the banks kept for themselves failed.

And the Gov't wasn't the only insurer. AIG and private mortgage insurers backed Trillions in these loans.

Follow the Money. This wasn't about the standards. It was about ignoring the standards to get commissions and bonuses. From the loan originator to the executive. The guys that pushed loans through got huge bonuses and recognition. They got promoted and paid. The few that did it right, they underperformed every month and watched $$$ walk out the door. Probably lost their jobs first. If the CEO was looking out for 2008 and beyond, he probably got fired in 2005 for not keeping up with Wachovia (failed).

Hillary is the newest teflon president in waiting.
1. What about Vince Foster?
2. Benghazi?
3. E-mail scandal?
4. Whitewater scandal?
on and on.......................