New poll shows that voters trust the GOP more than Democrats...

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,254
55,807
136
Ahhh yes - a poll of 1000 people must mean all the US wants the same. :eek:

Nothing like any wing sided media to feed the 'truth' to those who cannot think for themselves.

A poll of 1,000 people has a high enough n for it to be a valid proxy for the opinions of everyone in the US. There are reasons for why this poll might not be valid however. First, it was an exit poll in a midterm, and midterm voters are not a good proxy for the country as a whole. In addition, Rasmussen has a history of biased question wording and Republican leading outcomes. As Nate Silver documented, Rasmussen was badly biased this election cycle across the board. The number of people in the poll is perfectly fine however.

Most other polls generally show that people dislike the health care bill, but oppose repealing it.
 

wayliff

Lifer
Nov 28, 2002
11,720
11
81
A poll of 1,000 people has a high enough n for it to be a valid proxy for the opinions of everyone in the US. There are reasons for why this poll might not be valid however. First, it was an exit poll in a midterm, and midterm voters are not a good proxy for the country as a whole. In addition, Rasmussen has a history of biased question wording and Republican leading outcomes. As Nate Silver documented, Rasmussen was badly biased this election cycle across the board. The number of people in the poll is perfectly fine however.

Most other polls generally show that people dislike the health care bill, but oppose repealing it.

I agree up until the point that I ask myself how diverse was the population that was polled...any poll.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,536
20,225
146
So you're saying that you like the financial collapse that occurred due to reckless behavior by financial firms. You're saying that you like the largest oil spill in the nation's history destroying the Gulf. You're saying you liked Bernie Madoff bilking thousands of people out of their life savings. You're saying you like child labor. You're saying you like unsafe conditions. You're saying you like The Jungle style meat reaching our markets. You're saying you like insurance companies denying claims because it would lose them money and letting people die. You're saying you like drug companies releasing unsafe products.

I could keep going, but you might get my point by now. That point being that government control and regulation is the only reason crappy situations like this don't exist. We still get some of these even when the regulation is decreased or slacks off as evidenced by our latest problems in the economy. Private industry has proved again and again that if left to regulating itself, IT WON'T! So either you like an anarchistic hellhole, or you're an idiot. I'm guessing the latter.

You see it all in extremes of black and white and go to ridiculous extremes to make your case.

The recent housing collapse was CAUSED by government regulations, not because of a lack of them. It was caused by the government mandating that people who had no business owning a house get loans for houses they couldn't pay for. It was bound to collapse the minute it was started. Freddy and Fanny caused this. The minute the government got in the business of home loans, they doomed it.

The accident in the gulf was just that. An accident. They happen, and companies already have a compelling interest to minimize accidents: They are costly. When you drive down the road do you avoid getting into accidents because of laws, or because they cost money and are dangerous?

As for healthcare, you cannot make the work product of one man, the right of another. Period. For this reason, healthcare can NEVER be a "right." It must remain private industry.

Minimal, liberal government is not anarchy. Quite the contrary. The rights of the individual are always protected.
 
Last edited:

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,536
20,225
146
Do you like private industry control of government?

Absolutely not. Which is why we need a "separation of business and state" that works identically to the "separation of church and state."

The more government meddles in business, the more compelling reason business has to meddle in government.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,254
55,807
136
I agree up until the point that I ask myself how diverse was the population that was polled...any poll.

Polls that aren't exit polls use random digit dialing, a truly random sample in the US as nearly everyone owns a phone. With the proliferation of cell phone only households this took a dip in usefulness but most credible pollsters do that now too.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,254
55,807
136
You see it all in extremes of black and white and go to ridiculous extremes to make your case.

The recent housing collapse was CAUSED by government regulations, not because of a lack of them. It was caused by the government mandating that people who had no business owning a house get loans for houses they couldn't pay for. It was bound to collapse the minute it was started. Freddy and Fanny caused this. The minute the government got in the business of home loans, they doomed it.

The accident in the gulf was just that. An accident. They happen, and companies already have a compelling interest to minimize accidents: They are costly. When you drive down the road do you avoid getting into accidents because of laws, or because they cost money and are dangerous?

As for healthcare, you cannot make the work product of one man, the right of another. Period. For this reason, healthcare can NEVER be a "right." It must remain private industry.

Minimal, liberal government is not anarchy. Quite the contrary. The rights of the individual are always protected.

The housing collapse was not caused by the CRA. This is a point that has been completely discredited over and over and over again.

The federal reserve itself has said that the CRA did not lead to the crisis:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm

The vast majority of subprime loans came from institutions that weren't even subject to the CRA.

In addition, commercial real estate experienced a nearly identical bubble to residential real estate, despite the fact that commercial real estate was not affected by either the CRA or Fannie and Freddie.

If you genuinely believe the CRA/Fannie/Freddie caused the housing crisis, how can you possibly account for these facts?
 

wayliff

Lifer
Nov 28, 2002
11,720
11
81
Polls that aren't exit polls use random digit dialing, a truly random sample in the US as nearly everyone owns a phone. With the proliferation of cell phone only households this took a dip in usefulness but most credible pollsters do that now too.

That is great but pollsters will still be unable to guarantee a diversified sample of the population all the time. I know there's a margin of error that is publicized with the report but I just don't trust it.

We'd be assuming that every phone call made was picked up and responded to.
Hopefully the algorithm takes into consideration political boundaries.

I believe it is still at risk of grabbing too much wing sided opinion. There's also a lot that can be manipulated.

I am sure there are really good polls out there, I just don't swallow any but I think many people take it as the absolute truth. (That 1000 thinks like that therefore so must everyone else. I also wonder if people even read how many people were polled).

Anyway...just what I think.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,965
3,952
136
I dislike government control of private industry.

Then you must be constantly outraged, what with those annoying workplace safety regulations, environmental regulations, child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, food safety regulations etc etc.

Most people dislike having to have a bake sale to raise $100k for their kid's bone marrow transplant because Mega Conglomerate Health Corporation dropped him like a hot potato when he got leukemia.

Don't let your personal political philosophy override common sense.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
You see it all in extremes of black and white and go to ridiculous extremes to make your case.

The recent housing collapse was CAUSED by government regulations, not because of a lack of them. It was caused by the government mandating that people who had no business owning a house get loans for houses they couldn't pay for. It was bound to collapse the minute it was started. Freddy and Fanny caused this. The minute the government got in the business of home loans, they doomed it.

The accident in the gulf was just that. An accident. They happen, and companies already have a compelling interest to minimize accidents: They are costly. When you drive down the road do you avoid getting into accidents because of laws, or because they cost money and are dangerous?

As for healthcare, you cannot make the work product of one man, the right of another. Period. For this reason, healthcare can NEVER be a "right." It must remain private industry.

Minimal, liberal government is not anarchy. Quite the contrary. The rights of the individual are always protected.

How many times must you be slapped down with reality of the housing collapse? This was explained to you this week: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=30690442&highlight=#post30690442
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
I would like to thank everyone who backed up my comments by owning Amused while I was away.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
Don't worry, the polls will show the exact opposite 2 years from now. And then again 4 years from now. And then again 6 years from now...
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,536
20,225
146
The housing collapse was not caused by the CRA. This is a point that has been completely discredited over and over and over again.

The federal reserve itself has said that the CRA did not lead to the crisis:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm

The vast majority of subprime loans came from institutions that weren't even subject to the CRA.

In addition, commercial real estate experienced a nearly identical bubble to residential real estate, despite the fact that commercial real estate was not affected by either the CRA or Fannie and Freddie.

If you genuinely believe the CRA/Fannie/Freddie caused the housing crisis, how can you possibly account for these facts?

Those aren't facts, they are denials. That's like asking the fox if he took the chicken.

Freddy and Fanny created an atmosphere of competition and government pressure to extend high risk loans.

Why else would banks make such high risk loans? Seriously?

Some critics of the CRA contend that by encouraging banking institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and areas, the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending. We have not yet seen empirical evidence to support these claims, nor has it been our experience in implementing the law over the past 30 years that the CRA has contributed to the erosion of safe and sound lending practices.

Bullshit. Freddy and Fanny CREATED the market for these kinds of loans by offering them themselves.

The minute the government got into the business of home loans, they started the downfall of the industry.

I see lots of denials. That's it. But there is no other logical reason for the entire industry to suddenly start offering such high risk loans. And they didn't, until the government started doing it.

Look, I can post biased opinion pieces to support my side of the argument too:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html

Hell, I'll even post wiki:

In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the subprime market.[110] In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[111] From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities. Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market.[112] The GSE have always been highly leveraged, their net worth as of 30 June 2008 being a mere US$114 billion.[113] When concerns arose in September 2008 regarding the ability of the GSE to make good on their guarantees, the Federal government was forced to place the companies into a conservatorship, effectively nationalizing them at the taxpayers' expense.[114][115]
Freddy and Fanny are the main cause of this, along with the leftist idea that everyone deserves a home. Period. Take those away, and this NEVER would have happened.

Another article of that shows government trying to open the housing market to subprime borrowers caused this:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/30/real_estate/congress_subprime.fortune/

Did banking deregulation have somthing to do with it? Of course. But the PURPOSE of the PARTIAL deregulation was to put people in homes that had no business borrowing money at all. It was to ENTICE banks to lend to those they NEVER would have lent money to before.

Plainly put: The housing crisis is a direct result of social engineering by the government. They dicked with a market to favor a leftist ideology and it destroyed the market.

Here's another good timeline of the crisis:

http://classicaliberalism.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html
 
Last edited:

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
The recent housing collapse was CAUSED by government regulations, not because of a lack of them. It was caused by the government mandating that people who had no business owning a house get loans for houses they couldn't pay for. It was bound to collapse the minute it was started. Freddy and Fanny caused this. The minute the government got in the business of home loans, they doomed it.

No no and no. Give us some sources for that and I'll give you a whole financial industry that collapsed under its own greed. Homeowners weren;t responsible for that.

The accident in the gulf was just that. An accident. They happen, and companies already have a compelling interest to minimize accidents: They are costly. When you drive down the road do you avoid getting into accidents because of laws, or because they cost money and are dangerous?

It wasn't really an accident if the company involved was negligent in following safety regulations.

As for healthcare, you cannot make the work product of one man, the right of another. Period. For this reason, healthcare can NEVER be a "right." It must remain private industry.

Aren't you confusing collective good with something else? Even your basic point is wrong, otherwise we would never collect taxes.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
The question should be do you trust wither Party. I bet the overwhelming answer is no.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,536
20,225
146
No no and no. Give us some sources for that and I'll give you a whole financial industry that collapsed under its own greed. Homeowners weren;t responsible for that.



It wasn't really an accident if the company involved was negligent in following safety regulations.



Aren't you confusing collective good with something else? Even your basic point is wrong, otherwise we would never collect taxes.

I already detailed the entire time-line of the mortgage crisis. A series of bills designed to open mortgages up to lower income, high risk borrowers caused it starting in 1977.

You missed my point. In theory, there are no "accidents" since every accident is in realty, a disaster due to negligence of some sort.

Um, no. I'm not confusing "collective good" with anything.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Those aren't facts, they are denials. That's like asking the fox if he took the chicken.

Freddy and Fanny created an atmosphere of competition and government pressure to extend high risk loans.

Why else would banks make such high risk loans? Seriously?



Bullshit. Freddy and Fanny CREATED the market for these kinds of loans by offering them themselves.

The minute the government got into the business of home loans, they started the downfall of the industry.

I see lots of denials. That's it. But there is no other logical reason for the entire industry to suddenly start offering such high risk loans. And they didn't, until the government started doing it.

Look, I can post biased opinion pieces to support my side of the argument too:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html

Hell, I'll even post wiki:


Freddy and Fanny are the main cause of this, along with the leftist idea that everyone deserves a home. Period. Take those away, and this NEVER would have happened.

Another article of that shows government trying to open the housing market to subprime borrowers caused this:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/30/real_estate/congress_subprime.fortune/

Did banking deregulation have somthing to do with it? Of course. But the PURPOSE of the PARTIAL deregulation was to put people in homes that had no business borrowing money at all. It was to ENTICE banks to lend to those they NEVER would have lent money to before.

Plainly put: The housing crisis is a direct result of social engineering by the government. They dicked with a market to favor a leftist ideology and it destroyed the market.

Good try, but you're wasting your time trying to convince people who can't see past "ebul Republicans! Ebul rich peoples!" on ANY problem. When someone already has an answer to every question, they don't need facts. The GSEs dropping all sane requirements on the mortgages they purchased and bankers loaning money to people who manifestly can't and/or won't pay back that money is purely coincidence; any government culpability is much less feasible to them that some pop psych theory that bankers subconsciously wanted their institutions to fail. (No doubt because everyone REALLY knows that capitalism is evil.)
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,536
20,225
146
Good try, but you're wasting your time trying to convince people who can't see past "ebul Republicans! Ebul rich peoples!" on ANY problem. When someone already has an answer to every question, they don't need facts. The GSEs dropping all sane requirements on the mortgages they purchased and bankers loaning money to people who manifestly can't and/or won't pay back that money is purely coincidence; any government culpability is much less feasible to them that some pop psych theory that bankers subconsciously wanted their institutions to fail. (No doubt because everyone REALLY knows that capitalism is evil.)

The most telling evidence out there that their own party is primarily to blame is this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=player_embedded#!

In 2004, 4 years before the crash, Republicans tried to put the brakes on the GSEs and were branded as racists for it.

Keep deluding yourselves guys.

The timeline of the mortgage crisis is there for all to see.

Hell, I'll even copy and paste the best one I've seen here:


•In 1977, while Jimmuh Carter was President and Tip O'Neill and Robert 'KKK' Byrd were Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader, respectively, the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, law was passed. Passed with the best intentions, the CRA was intended to cut down on discriminatory lending practices and open up loans to borrowers in low and moderate income neighborhoods.


•Then in 1980, with the same players in power, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. This act removed the state limits on interest rates banks could charge on mortgages. Amongst other things, this legislation was a continuation of the policy to get more low and moderate income home ownership, by giving banks more incentive to lend to riskier parties.


•In 1982, with Reagan in the White House, and Democratics still in control of both houses of congress, the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act was passed. AMTPA specifically allowed alternative types of financing on home loans other than traditional fixed rate mortgages. Again, here as with before, the intention was to open up home ownership to low and moderate-income households by offering additional methods to finance a house.


•Starting in 1995, the GSE's (read: oxymoron), Government Sponsored Enterprises, began to receive government tax incentives to purchase mortgage backed securities. This is a critical turning point in the foreclosure crisis, because later it will be shown that after HUD set goals for the GSE's to buy more subprime paper, which are riskier than traditional mortgages and have a higher rate of failure, the GSE's turned around and sold to investment banks as low-risk investments.


•In 1997, congress passed, and President Clinton signed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This legislation reduced the capital gains on the sale of homes under $500,000. This action alone did nothing to impact the foreclosure crisis. However, when coupled with insane subprime lending practices, these tax rates made home sales the best return on the dollar investment for the average person. Thus began the home speculation wave.


•In 1998, HUD Director Andrew Cuomo held a press conference detailing a settlement reached with a major bank on a lending discrimination case, presumably based on the CRA. The result of the settlement was $2.1 Billion for subprime loan offers. He admits that the lawsuit forced the bank to lower it's qualification standards as a remedy to the 'discriminatory' lending practices. This is is another crucial turn in the foreclosure crisis. The press conference was a warning to other lending institutions that the administration intended to interpret the CRA laws broadly and that the full force of the Clinton Administration would be aligned against any company that did not meet their standards of the CRA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64&feature=player_embedded#!

It is these enforcement techniques coupled with the marketing of the MBS as low-risk investments which spurred the enthusiastic subprime lending from the private lenders. What was the risk? Offer risky loans to low-income applicants making a large profit, then sell the asset to the GSE's which then acquired the risk. No risk, high profit subprime loans then became a no lose option for the private lenders.


•The next step is one of supply and demand. With a flood of new 'qualified buyers' on the market for homes, the new home builders went gonzo. New home starts went through the roof, as demand never seemed to dry up. Demand out paced supply until sometime during mid 2006. Once the supply of homes outweighed the demand by consumers, home prices began to fall. It is this fall coupled with insane personal debt amounts that would begin the foreclosure crisis. During the boom years between 1998 and 2006, home owners were able to use their homes as banks, borrowing against the equity in their home at values higher than the home's actual value, all while banking on the increasing value of the home. Also at this time, Adjustable Rate Mortgages were in demand allowing a home owner to purchase the home with an introductory, low interest rate, which would adjust after 3-5 years. The expectation was that the value of the home would have risen during that time, allowing the owner to refinance into another ARM or traditional loan, at a lower interest rate. It was this expectation of an ever increasing home value that lead home owner after home owner to extend their personal debt beyond the sustainable point.

Once home values began to fall, and adjustable rate mortgages adjusted, many home owners were no longer able to afford their monthly mortgage payments. As a result, foreclosures began to rise. In turn home values fell further causing the housing bubble to burst.



•Finally, and most despicably, the systematic fraud committed by the two GSE's in mis-stating earnings as to increase the bonus compensation for the executive staff's allowed the crisis to continue on long after it should have. The GSE's were government entities, so they could borrow money at lower interest rates, they required less capitalization and they had less regulations all of which were supposed to translate into more money available to securitize mortgages. Instead, names like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and Jim Johnson all cooked the books in order to increase their bonuses. At the same time, Alan Greenspan was pointing out the dangers of the GSE's weak capitalization. There were voices of reason, but few had ears to listen.
 
Last edited:

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,536
20,225
146
I would like to thank everyone who backed up my comments by owning Amused while I was away.

Owning? Not a fucking chance.

Leftist ideology caused the mortgage crisis, and is proof that fucking with free markets to meet an ideology only serves to destroy them.

I've posted MORE than enough proof of that.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I don't understand why anyone trusts any of them.

Since both parties enjoy trust in the negative numbers, it's probably hard to quantify whose numbers are best at a particular moment.

The correct answer to "Do you trust the Democrats more or the Republicans more?" is a resounding "NO!"
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The most telling evidence out there that their own party is primarily to blame is this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=player_embedded#!

In 2004, 4 years before the crash, Republicans tried to put the brakes on the GSEs and were branded as racists for it.

Keep deluding yourselves guys.

The timeline of the mortgage crisis is there for all to see.

Hell, I'll even copy and paste the best one I've seen here:
Great post. Note though that not only did Republicans have six years controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House and did nothing substantial to avert this problem even after it was quite apparent what was happening, they also smashed the sad, tattered remnants of Glass-Steagall. That allowed the inevitable mortgage crisis to crash investment banking as well, which damned near took the global economy into depression. Then the Pubbies and the Dems took turns ensuring that tax money was used not only to keep these "too large to fail" institutions from failing, but also to protect their profits.

Neither party has anything like clean hands in this mess. And neither party has since done much to fix the underlying problems.