AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Obama Signs Tax Cut Bill, Partisan Debate Rages On


Hey Nancy, why the long face?

I don't agree. This late and extended session of a lame duck Congress is rather unusual - particularly given the previous inaction of the Democrat-controlled Congress on key budget bills - for a fiscal year that started on Oct. 1. Now, after a major electoral defeat they are trying to push an "omnibus" bill, laden with pork designed to gather a few Republican votes, at the last moment and with little debate. It appears their effort has been defeated and these actions will now be dealt with by the new Congress which has a Republican majority in the House where spending bills originate.

Nobody was talking about the Omnibus spending bill, George. If you had bothered to follow my link, they were discussing the START treaty.

Not only that, but why do you go on about the 'major electoral defeat' bullcrap? You don't honestly believe it. You don't think that either the Dems OR the Republicans should ever respect elections or defeats. Remember? You've consistently stated that you think both parties are morally correct in using whatever tactics they can to block or pass legislation.

Where was your opprobrium towards the Republicans for not respecting their major electoral defeat in 2008? It was non-existent, which is why your current complaining is less than meaningful.

Cycloptichorn

She looks wistful...

As if she's realized that come January she will no longer be quite the powerful figure she once was.

It's the most human she's looked in years.

Careful, georgeob. The last election was not a mandate for the republicans. Congress still has one of the lowest ratings in contemporary times at about 13% approval. That includes the GOP who became the Party of No since 2008.

I would also point out that polling shows that the general public trusts Obama on every single issue to a greater degree than Congressional Republicans. Every issue.

You didn't see that in 1994 or 2006, the last time the House switched hands. At all.

Cycloptichorn

Well, I was talking about the now defunct Omnibus spending bill and that's good enough for me.

I do believe the Democrats suffered a major electoral defeat this year. How else would you characterize it? However, I don't believe that requires the Democrats in Congress to merely sit back passively and accept what the Republicans want. I was merely pointing out the rather gross hypocrisy of the Left Wing Democrats, who deliberately delayed addressing budget legislation when it was due (the current fiscal year is almost 1/4th over), and who now want to rush combined authorizations through in a late lame duck session.

I merely characterized the Democrat attempts to pass major budget legislation during the lame duck session of the Congress as "unusual" - not immoral or unlawful. I'll also add that it was a rather childish and transparent failed attempt at political positioning, one that emphasizes the failure of the left wing of the Democrat party to understand its now diminished political stature . I will readily agree that these political tactics are legitimate - if a bit silly in this case - maneuvers. You were rather unforgiving in condemning some morally & legally equivalent ( but more effective) maneuvers by Republicans in the Congress: it is inconsistent of you to defend them now when done by Democrats.

Minorities, whether Republican or Democrat do have rights in our Congress, and our constitution was developed with specific intent to protect minority rights. The Democrats have every right to pursue their political agenda in the Congress by any and all lawful means in the new Congress, just as did the Republicans during the current one.

You responded to a post where I was talking about something completely different and said that you 'don't agree' with what I said.

It's hard to take ya seriously when you don't even bother to read what people write at all.

Cycloptichorn

Banner looks the same as always - a real jerk who's about ready to burst out in tears.....

Firstly I don't think this dude is any less partisan than you or Krugman, or that you, or me for that matter, use 'facts' in any less like manner.

Also you and 'dude' are at least partially wrong about F/F and CRA and their contribution to the crisis. Considering the timeline of all the components... they can't be unrelated IMO.

I agree with you that 'dude' has his summation out of phase.

Subprime loans began to accel in the 90's, and in that period F/F was buying loans...and CRA was in place (since 1977). CRA required banks make loans to 'low and moderate income neighborhoods'. If they didn't the gov't would give them a 'rating' such that the bank would be prohibited and/or limited from performing other functions such as mergers and acquisitions.

That mandated practice alone placed their banking efforts in subprime territories. Credit Default Swaps came into being in 1997 followed by deregulation in 1999...that's when greed and kicking the can down the road(like the gov't is doing now) began to inflate the 'bubble'.

As far as F/F, by the mere fact they were buying loans all along they were buying subprime loans and it begin showing as a problem in 2001, and it was in 2004 that they were directed by HUD to purchase more loans made to subprime borrowers.

Krugman portrays this crisis paper to be one sided but we both know in these investigations, like the 9/11 commission report, the two parties conspire to save their asses at the same time throw blame to the other party.

So far this news about the omitted terms is coming second/third hand. I don't doubt that it happened...but I definitely don't doubt there's a lot more to it.

At least he doesn't bite his bottom lip like a little girl like Clinton did.

But ya, this Boehner dude needs to get a new act.

And he's darker than PrezBO.

LOL, that's some funny **** right there.

Thank you for the laughs.

First of all, learn how to spell, and secondly, there is nothing wrong with the guy's looks. Thirdly, please try to post something intelligent next time.

Full stop. What do you base this on? What data? I ask, because this is untrue. Subprime mortgages were not typically given to recipients of loans under the CRA program and loans under that program were MUCH less likely to go into default under the last decade. This is in large part because the government performed greater scrutiny of loans which qualified for this, thanks to... the CRA.

The vast majority of loans under the CRA were FAR below 'subprime.' Banks only made them because they had to, which we all understand; they had to be forced to start doing it in the first place and as late as the 90's there were still banks being prosecuted for Red lining. Loans given out under the CRA guidelines were far less likely to go into default then the more expensive Subprime and Alt-A loans.

Here:

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinvestment_act_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html



This is a little fuzzy but mostly true. What was inflating the 'bubble' was tremendous profits for Wall Street based not on Credit Default Swaps themselves, but instead on the CDO (Collateralized Debt Obligation) market, in this case with the collateral being mortgages. It opened up our investment markets to tremendous amounts of risk, risk that was THEN mitigated - supposedly - by the CDSwaps, sold in large amounts by AIG. Nobody knew AIG was completely and totally insolvent - or so they say.

It was a variety of factors that lead to our market crash, but they can all be traced back to a combination of greed on the part of Wall Street - and large parts of California, as well, the subprime was practically invented here - and a complete failure on the part of Government to identify problems in our investment markets and regulate them properly. This is due in large part to the hands-off attitude that found its' way into our government in the 90's; the 'let them self-regulate' argument. It was equally the fault of Republicans and Conservative, big-business Democrats like Clinton. Total idiots, all of them.



Once again, this is completely untrue. I'd love to see where you got this info.

F/F were subject to intense pressure in 2003 and 2004 to start matching the returns that Wall Street was making. And they started taking riskier and riskier loans on their books in order to do so. A lot of this probably has to do with that asshat Raines who used to run the place.

I highly suggest you read this article:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html



ANY discussion of the crisis that doesn't use the words 'Wall Street' or 'Shadow banking System' is a total and complete farce. It would be like a 9/11 commission report that didn't ever use the words 'Al Qaeda' or 'airplanes.' It's so unbelievable as to be completely and totally crazy.

And it's not second-hand, either. The Republicans on the committee released their own version of the report. Read it if ya like.

Regarding 'blaming the other party,' we're talking about a group of Dems and a group of Republicans. But the Dems aren't trying to pin this on the Republicans - they are blaming those who actually caused the crisis: Wall street and greed on the part of investment houses and banks. Is that the Republican party? Is that their job, to defend shitty and totally terrible decisions, ones that have seriously hurt all of us?

To the point where they ban certain words from the report. Not even a greater emphasis on F/F being the cause, if that's what they believe; they blame ONLY the government.

I wish I could say I was surprised, but this is totally par for the course for a political party which is completely intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Regarding the 2008 crash and recession, I'm more than happy to discuss any aspect of this you feel needs further explanation or attribution of fact. I've spent hundreds of hours researching this subject over the last two years and have an extensive set of links to research and data which backs up my argument. I did not set out to blame Republicans or anyone in particular for the crash, but instead to try and figure out exactly what happened, because it's pretty complex. Based on this research I feel completely and totally comfortable saying that the guy at the link you presented has no ******* clue what he is talking about. Not even a little. He just repeats talking points over and over.



The CRA is unrelated - truly - but F/F isn't. They didn't cause the problem but they were a giant part of the problem, in large part because they were ran like a PRIVATE COMPANY just like Wall Street was. The guys at the top were greedy as hell and took home huge paychecks for it - just like Wall Street.

And none of this even begins to discuss the effects of extremely low interest rates under Greenspan. There are just so many facets of this problem. And the problems are far from over. Feel free to head over to my 'The real foreclosure crisis has just begun' thread to see more about how the fallout from this hasn't even begun to reveal itself yet, and how the problems have not truly been addressed.

Cycloptichorn

He's allowed to have his opinion about the dude's look. I think he looks pretty damn good, for a carrot.

And let's face it, he's a crybaby. I've seen him cry more than any other politician.

Cycloptichorn

Sorry, didn't mean to make you whine turd bloosum II. You being Okie shouldn't be worried 'bout spelling, dumbo - okies don't get past third grade or so.

CRA loans were just like any other loans, there wasn't a ******* gov't employee sitting in every bank office reviewing every loan...to say there was a way to separate all of them out is ******* naive. And you'd have to be stupid enough to trust gov't figures.

From CRA site:

"# The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e. (See Regulation).

# The CRA requires that each insured depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions. (See CRA Ratings) CRA examinations (see Exam Schedules) are conducted by the federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions: the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). "

Here's another example of CRA requirements pushing banks into corners:

http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6



http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-saved.asp

The last refuge of a failed argument is to claim that the other guys numbers are lies, but not provide any evidence that this is the case.



No, but they were reviewed periodically by government regulators. Nobody claimed there was a guy sitting in every bank office. This is a Straw Man argument.



On the contrary; it's simple to do so. That is, if you know anything about it at all, it's simple to do so.

---

Have you done any real research into this subject? At all? Or do you just google things while talking to people about it, cut and paste parts of it in and pretend that you know what you are talking about? You failed to respond to 9/10 of the points I brought up, and substitute simple arguments for actual analysis.

Cycloptichorn

I knew you wouldn't accept anything....or use any real world logic.

Have you been out in the business world yet...any real world experience, or are you just in books?

Have you ever worked in a business and been exposed to bankers and other type gov't regulators and regulations?

Because I can speak from first hand experience.

You sound like a bookworm that doesn't really know anything about anything.

You posted too quick to have read anything I linked.

I posted at 9:15, you posted at 9:22 which includes all your quoting and creating a true straw man rebuttal.

Are you going to get serious or just bullshit?