Obama '08?

@parados,

Quote:

Heckling a sitting Congressman is OK?

Sure.
What makes you think that they are so special that it isnt ok?
Just like is perfectly ok to heckle a sitting President.

None of them are above being hecled, and heckling is a form of dissent.
If they cant take being heckled, they shouldnt be in office.

1 Reply

@Paddle,

Paddle,
I am also a conservative, and I have proudly admitted that.
However, since you only joined today (Oct 29) I would suggest you take the time to read what others have posted and get to know people before you go on the attack.
Cyclo, CI, and I disagree on almost everything, but we usually do so nicely.
We arent always successful, but we do try.

There is really only one person on here that I dont get along with, but I am not going to say who that is.
I will let you make up your own mind about everyone.

(The only problem I have with Cyclo and CI is that they think they are right, and I know I am) LOL

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

And at least they aren't heckling voters or carrying billy clubs at polling places, mm. I tend to agree with you as long as the heckling is not overdone. One only needs to check out the British House of Commons to witness heckling on a regular basis. But again, I don't think they wave billy clubs in the House of Commons, nor do they allow intimidation at polling places, as Obama's Department of Justice seems inclined to allow here in this country.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/29/new-black-panther-thugs-head-back-to-polls-democrat-panelist-blocks-civil-rights-commish-report/
"New Black Panther thugs head back to polls; Democrat panelist blocks Civil Rights Commish report"

0 Replies

@okie,

Okie, you do realize that the stock market is up by a lot since Obama took office, right?

Your theory that stocks move up and down based on upcoming elections is absolutely without merit.

By the way, you've had plenty of time now to consider and think about the Foreclosure topic we were discussing; care to respond to the posts now?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

By the way, you've had plenty of time now to consider and think about the Foreclosure topic we were discussing; care to respond to the posts now?

Cycloptichorn

See what I just posted on the economy thread about Fannie and Freddie, cyclops.

1 Reply

@okie,

That had nothing to do with what we were discussing, Okie. And everything to do with you avoiding talking about the facts of the situation, which you are profoundly uninformed about.

If I were to ask you what the steps were, from someone deciding to purchase a home to that mortgage ending up as part of a Mortgage backed security, and what had to happen to get there, could you describe the process? Do you know who the people involved are, what they did to get those mortgages to F/F, who then sold them to other investors? Your conversations on this topic carefully avoid any in-depth discussion of the details, preferring instead to jump right to the end - just blaming the government and Democrats for everything.

I find it particularly funny that in the other thread, you defended the practice of red lining. I wonder if you even know what it is, because it's a horrible thing, and not something to defend:

From wikipedia,

Quote:

Redlining is the practice of denying, or increasing the cost of, services such as banking, insurance, access to jobs,[2] access to health care,[3] or even supermarkets[4] to residents in certain, often racially determined,[5] areas

The CRA doesn't force anyone to give a loan to some shmoe with no job and no credit. You seem to think it does, but it doesn't. From the same article:

Quote:

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4] An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.[6][9]

The truth is that loans under the CRA were FAR LESS likely to default than many of the other exotic types of loans that lead to the crisis.

What it does do is prevent banks from racially discriminating against people. But you think that should be allowed. Right?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okie, you do realize that the stock market is up by a lot since Obama took office, right?

Your theory that stocks move up and down based on upcoming elections is absolutely without merit.Cycloptichorn

The DOW is nowhere near the high it attained during the Bush administration, cyclops.

Also, your claim that stock markets do not respond to political leadership or elections, I think that is frankly silly, cyclops. We can argue about how much they are affected and in what direction, but surely you would agree that they have an impact upon markets? I admit it is my opinion, but I am not alone. In fact, during the 2008 election cycle, there was a term called the "Obama Effect" that was known. In other words, it was not me that made it up. The market dips were correlated to Obama's overcoming of Hillary in the primaries, then when polling indicated he would beat McCain, then at his election, and finally at the point of his inauguration.

Sure, it is a theory that I think might have credence, but I think if the Democrats lose big next Tuesday, the market will respond favorably, possibly in proportion to the size of the gains for Republicans. If the gains are so small as to make it unlikely that the Repubs can do much against Obama's inititiatives, both what he has already done and what he wants to do, then the market may not do much in the positive direction and instead languish more or less until the upcoming presidential election.

Part of the reason I am managing my retirement funds as I am is due to the fact that I think investments might markedly improve if we can change the current crop of losers in Washington. Count me as one that responds to elections, and I do not think it is at all unreasonable that millions of investors are doing the same, in particular the managers of funds. For example, do you think fund managers have been ignoring cap and trade, Obamacare, and a whole host of other issues out there in the political arena?

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

We can argue about how much they are affected and in what direction, but surely you would agree that they have an impact upon markets?

No, I don't agree with that, because there's absolutely zero evidence for your theory.

Quote:

I admit it is my opinion, but I am not alone. In fact, during the 2008 election cycle, there was a term called the "Obama Effect" that was known. In other words, it was not me that made it up. The market dips were correlated to Obama's overcoming of Hillary in the primaries, then when polling indicated he would beat McCain, then at his election, and finally at the point of his inauguration.

Unbelievable. You don't think that the 'market dips' have more to do with the fact that the economy was cold collapsing, that businesses such as Bear Stearns and Lehman were going under? That people were just throwing billions of dollars of investments away, based on some sort of panic that a Democrat would get elected?

Not only that, but when the economy collapsed in September of 2008, Obama was behind in the polls to McCain. It was the first time McCain had led in the polls for the entire election! You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Corporate profits are WAY up under Obama. Way up. Taxes are down. I don't know why you think anyone would be tossing money away based on worries....

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I find it particularly funny that in the other thread, you defended the practice of red lining. I wonder if you even know what it is, because it's a horrible thing, and not something to defend:
Cycloptichorn

Lets talk about that, cyclops. Common sense should tell you that red lining was not simply against individual home buyers, but it was a practice by loan companies that identified neighborhoods that were a poor risk in terms of long term home values, perhaps due to a whole host of reasons, such as a higher percentage of defaults, plummeting home values, poor economies and job losses in those areas, as well as declining maintenance of homes in those areas. I would compare it to making loans on cars. If you redlined loans for certain makes of cars, such as the Edsel, sure it discriminates against the people that wanted to buy Edsels, but not because of who the buyers were, but what they wanted to buy. In other words, the car they wanted to buy would not have been a safe or sound investment. The same principle probably applies to properties, it is just common sense that some neighborhoods do not represent good areas for investment. If you have ever bought a home, you would know that real estate people will tell you there are three important things to remember when considering buying a home, those being location, location, and location.

I don't know if you live in a cocoon that is insulated from reality, but your opinions appear to indicate that, cyclops. I have to wonder if you have any common sense when it comes to buying and selling properties or anything. Maybe you have been in academia so long that you really are that naive about how the world works. I don't mean to be too sarcastic, but that is seriously my impression of your opinions.

By the way, you have never answered my question about what you would think would happen to the auto industry if the government did the same thing there as they did in the home loan industry.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, I don't agree with that, because there's absolutely zero evidence for your theory.Cycloptichorn

I just reminded you of the Obama Effect, cyclops, which is evidence. You can agree with it or not, but it is evidence.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The CRA doesn't force anyone to give a loan to some shmoe with no job and no credit. You seem to think it does, but it doesn't.

True, the CRA doesn't force anyone to give a loan, but many in the federal government responsible for enforcing the law can, do, and did encourage giving loans to those with inadequate financial resources to meet the legal debt service requirements for those loans.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

Another crucial point about this also, ican, CRA was not just about buyers, it was about properties. It encouraged loans for high risk properties, which essentially had the same outcome as loans to high risk buyers. For example, if property values plunge, how likely will it be for the buyer to default, very possibly by choice because it makes little sense to pay for a property that is no longer worth much of anything. I think many buyers or investors chose to default, not because they could not make the payments, but because the income potential for the properties became zilch and it made no sense to throw more good money after bad. I understand that happened in lots of places, Detroit being a possible example.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

And everything to do with you avoiding talking about the facts of the situation, which you are profoundly uninformed about.

Seems to be a pretty common affliction for a lot of Americans , doesn't it, Cy?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, I don't agree with that, because there's absolutely zero evidence for your theory.Cycloptichorn

I just reminded you of the Obama Effect, cyclops, which is evidence. You can agree with it or not, but it is evidence.

No, it's not 'evidence.' It's an uninformed opinion of yours which is proven false by a factual examination of actual events which rocked the financial market in 2008.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

GWB did absolutely nothing and did not enforce any regulate. He even wanted to skuttle what regulation there was.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Lets talk about that, cyclops. Common sense should tell you that red lining was not simply against individual home buyers, but it was a practice by loan companies that identified neighborhoods that were a poor risk

Bullshit. Redlining was the practice of systematic discrimination against minorities by banks and other institutions. You have no idea what you are talking about, and it's disgusting to try and see you defend what amounts to racism using gussied-up words.

I can't help but notice that in these discussions of economics, you never link to any factual attribution or logical argumentation to back up your positions... it's hard to have a serious discussion when you are so profoundly uninformed, and simply refuse to consider the facts that are contrary to your opinion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

No, it's not 'evidence.' It's an uninformed opinion of yours which is proven false by a factual examination of actual events ...

Seems to be a common affliction for a whole lot of Americans, doesn't it, Cy? There are even some who refuse to look at the facts.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Another crucial point about this also, ican, CRA was not just about buyers, it was about properties. It encouraged loans for high risk properties, which essentially had the same outcome as loans to high risk buyers.

100% untrue. Perhaps you could link to the part of the CRA which encouraged loans for 'high risk' properties, specifically.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The CRA doesn't force anyone to give a loan to some shmoe with no job and no credit. You seem to think it does, but it doesn't.

True, the CRA doesn't force anyone to give a loan, but many in the federal government responsible for enforcing the law can, do, and did encourage giving loans to those with inadequate financial resources to meet the legal debt service requirements for those loans.

You make this statement, based on what evidence, exactly? I know this is sort of futile, but can you provide some background on how the CRA and others encouraged banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The Jon Stewart/Colbert rally on the national mall is gigantic. Makes the recent spat of partisan rallies look like a joke.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know