• Welcome to RCCrawler Forums.

    It looks like you're enjoying RCCrawler's Forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members, and much more. Register now!

    Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.

The RCC Voting Booth

Who's It Gonna Be?

  • Obama

    Votes: 36 23.2%
  • Romney

    Votes: 97 62.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 22 14.2%

  • Total voters
    155
  • Poll closed .
Tuition for University of Wyoming is going to cost $80k for 4 years for my daughter. Four year degrees don't get a whole lot cheaper than that anymore.

Is that room and board for all 4 years a well, or tuition only? When I was living on campus and having them feed me, the cost was about $17K/yr.....the bill from the school was MUCH less after I moved off campus.
 
Tuition for University of Wyoming is going to cost $80k for 4 years for my daughter. Four year degrees don't get a whole lot cheaper than that anymore.


Yup, I paid right 13-14 for a pretty run of the mill public school for my undergrad - that was a few years ago though. Books were around $900 a semester.

I got through with work, scholarships and beer.:ror:
 
It started with CRA back in the 70s and got worse as more and more well intentioned Government interference was imposed.

Not quite. It was less regulation that started this ball rolling, not more. Parts of the Glass-Steagel Act were repealed and allowed the investment firms to do what they did.
 
Not quite. It was less regulation that started this ball rolling, not more. Parts of the Glass-Steagel Act were repealed and allowed the investment firms to do what they did.

You aren't talking about what happened to it in the late 90's are you?
 
Not quite. It was less regulation that started this ball rolling, not more. Parts of the Glass-Steagel Act were repealed and allowed the investment firms to do what they did.

I'm don't mean to come off as excusing the banking industry or to say they were not culpable for part of the mortgage crisis. But it was CRA "interference" that set the ball rolling. The issues started with "well meaning" politicians and beaurocras using CRA as a tool to interject their personal agendas into the financial market.

The financial market of course reacted to that interference which in turn set the stage for what happened after the Glass-Steagal Act sections were repealed.

Like most things it's a action-reaction combination that sets these things in motion. Neither side is wholly innocent. Both both are responsible for what transpired.

It's goes back to the " unintended consequences" I referred to earlier. When you have people in position to make rules and regulations on the market who do to fully understand the complecities of that market as a whole, it starts a chain of events that usually ends badly.
 
605_10151117137957596_252790520_n.jpg
 
You aren't talking about what happened to it in the late 90's are you?

Yes.

I'm don't mean to come off as excusing the banking industry or to say they were not culpable for part of the mortgage crisis. But it was CRA "interference" that set the ball rolling. The issues started with "well meaning" politicians and beaurocras using CRA as a tool to interject their personal agendas into the financial market.

The financial market of course reacted to that interference which in turn set the stage for what happened after the Glass-Steagal Act sections were repealed.

Like most things it's a action-reaction combination that sets these things in motion. Neither side is wholly innocent. Both both are responsible for what transpired.

It's goes back to the " unintended consequences" I referred to earlier. When you have people in position to make rules and regulations on the market who do to fully understand the complecities of that market as a whole, it starts a chain of events that usually ends badly.

The G-S act was something that was needed. Its been proved several times over that the financial sector cannot be left to their own devices. Each time they do it causes nothing but trouble.

The CLA was also a good thing, but as you said, it got screwed with and went sour.

The only people who seem to benefit from deregulation (in these cases) are the ones who have the potential to do the most damage to our economy...I think it's been pretty clearly shown that they will waste no time in doing so either.

Are our leaders at fault? Absolutely, or at least the ones that supported these measures are. They are just as guilty of this mess as those bankers on Wall Street are. Funny thing is, nobody thinks to vote those fawkers out.

We just seem to happily overlook the greed and corruption and the total lack of concern for the American people while blaming the "other guys" for our woes.

I don't care which side of the isle your team is on...they're only job is to work for and protect US. If it seems evident that they are not, no matter what excuse they may give, show them the door. Nothing in Washington is going to change until the people make it change.

Without that third greedy group, none of this nonsense would have happened. "thumbsup"

"thumbsup"
 
I vote for myself as president, and the first thing I would do is raise all of your taxes so I can buy more crawlers.


I guess it's a good thing Romney and Obama don't have an RC addiction...we'd really be screwed :shock:
 
Back
Top