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

[First]

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.

Here's another good timeline of the crisis:

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

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:

So the best you can muster in response to a Federal Reserve study of the CRA is to Google some wingnut hack-job sites that don't even bother to formulate their arguments without purposefully mocking the names of the politicians and bills they cite, and of course offer absolutely zero quantitative, empirical evidence to support their claims that CRA contributed directly or indirectly to an increase in risky sub-prime loans. Nor do your "articles" even address the reality that even if that might have been the case, that the existence of unregulated derivatives & CDOs exponentially exacerbated the problem far more than CRA or any other piece of legislation could hope do because that's the entire purpose of a CDO, to mitigate risk by spreading it out.

Now, here's what the Fed actually showed empirically, something you couldn't impeach if your life depended on it (go ahead, try, lol):

Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.

Of course, loan originations are only one path that banking institutions can follow to meet their CRA obligations. They can also purchase loans from lenders not covered by the CRA, and in this way encourage more of this type of lending. The data also suggest that these types of transactions have not been a significant factor in the current crisis. Specifically, less than 2 percent of the higher-priced and CRA-credit-eligible mortgage originations sold by independent mortgage companies were purchased by CRA-covered institutions.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Here's another good timeline of the crisis:

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

Hahaha, I love how the governors of the federal reserve, the nations independent central bank, are now a 'biased opinion piece'. You're just making yourself look bad now.

Did you even read what you posted? The only article you linked from a reputable source (ie: the fortune one, the only non ultra right wing blog) blamed DEREGULATION, the government allowing banks more freedom to make whatever loans they wished. That article says the government wasn't meddling enough. Which is it? Too much government or not enough?

I brought up a bunch of inconvenient facts for you, you responded with a flurry of ultra conservative blog entries, a CNN article you obviously didn't read, and the statement that you were right, 'period'. Making an argument is easy when you don't have to provide any facts, huh?

I noticed that you also paid zero attention to the fact that commercial real estate experienced the same bubble, despite the fact that none of these mean old government institutions affected commercial real estate. I assume inconvenient facts are to be ignored if they threaten cherished ideology.

You're a true believer I'm sure, but you would be helping yourself above all others if you took a deep breath, cleared your head for a minute, and looked at objective, empirical evidence as opposed to frothing right wing blogs. You can still hate the government, the CRA, and the GSE's even if they didn't cause the housing crash, you know. In fact it would be much better that way, because you could hate them for real reasons instead of for reasons out of ultra right fever dreams.

 

[Amused]

Hahaha, I love how the governors of the federal reserve, the nations independent central bank, are now a 'biased opinion piece'. You're just making yourself look bad now.

Did you even read what you posted? The only article you linked from a reputable source (ie: the fortune one, the only non ultra right wing blog) blamed DEREGULATION, the government allowing banks more freedom to make whatever loans they wished. That article says the government wasn't meddling enough. Which is it? Too much government or not enough?

I brought up a bunch of inconvenient facts for you, you responded with a flurry of ultra conservative blog entries, a CNN article you obviously didn't read, and the statement that you were right, 'period'. Making an argument is easy when you don't have to provide any facts, huh?

I noticed that you also paid zero attention to the fact that commercial real estate experienced the same bubble, despite the fact that none of these mean old government institutions affected commercial real estate. I assume inconvenient facts are to be ignored if they threaten cherished ideology.

You're a true believer I'm sure, but you would be helping yourself above all others if you took a deep breath, cleared your head for a minute, and looked at objective, empirical evidence as opposed to frothing right wing blogs. You can still hate the government, the CRA, and the GSE's even if they didn't cause the housing crash, you know. In fact it would be much better that way, because you could hate them for real reasons instead of for reasons out of ultra right fever dreams.

If you had READ the posts instead of poisoning the wells you'd see that the deregulation that occured had ONE purpose behind it: extending loans to those who formally would NEVER had qualified for one.

Even the CNN link I posted admits this.

The left latches on to the word "deregulation" and think it trumps their argument. It does not. In fact, it shows that when government PARTIALLY deregulates OR regulates with SOCIAL ENGINEERING in mind, they destroy entire industries.

 

[Amused]

So the best you can muster in response to a Federal Reserve study of the CRA is to Google some wingnut hack-job sites that don't even bother to formulate their arguments without purposefully mocking the names of the politicians and bills they cite, and of course offer absolutely zero quantitative, empirical evidence to support their claims that CRA contributed directly or indirectly to an increase in risky sub-prime loans. Nor do your "articles" even address the reality that even if that might have been the case, that the existence of unregulated derivatives & CDOs exponentially exacerbated the problem far more than CRA or any other piece of legislation could hope do because that's the entire purpose of a CDO, to mitigate risk by spreading it out.

Now, here's what the Fed actually showed empirically, something you couldn't impeach if your life depended on it (go ahead, try, lol):

Go abck and READ my posts. The CRA and GSEs merely STARTED it. The rest snowballed with deregulation/social engineering of an entire industry intended to OPEN housing markets to low income people.

Just try READING the timeline.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Sorry, you have not proved any causation at all.

How can you possibly prove that this mess would have happened anyway without credit default swaps?

How do you know that had we not switched to a fee based mortgage system that banks would not have rubber stamped approvals?

You can't, and no amount of pulling up pages of government action will prove that.

Its a right wing pet theory with no real evidence behind it.

Also, as the other poster pointed out, you are trying to have it both ways, blaming both too much Government intervention and not enough.

In the end it was up to the banks to make sure they weren't getting in over their heads. Ah but the money was good, and eveyone looked the other way.

If the government passes a law banning public farting and 10 years later we have a recession you can't just claim they are related because one followed the other.

 

[Amused]

Sorry, you have not proved any causation at all.

How can you possibly prove that this mess would have happened anyway without credit default swaps?

How do you know that had we not switched to a fee based mortgage system that banks would not have rubber stamped approvals?

You can't, and no amount of pulling up pages of government action will prove that.

Its a right wing pet theory with no real evidence behind it.

Also, as the other poster pointed out, you are trying to have it both ways, blaming both too much Government intervention and not enough.

In the end it was up to the banks to make sure they weren't getting in over their heads. Ah but the money was good, and eveyone looked the other way.

If the government passes a law banning public farting and 10 years later we have a recession you can't just claim they are related because one followed the other.

Because the very laws they passed increased risky lending by design, AND caused the housing market to explode, driving prices through the roof.

I can't help you if you choose to deny the obvious. But NONE of this would have happened if the dems had not passed the laws deregulating the banks so they could offer high risk loans with reduced risk to themselves in an effort to extend home ownership to those who previously could not qualify for loans. Period. THESE are the loans that defaulted. The VERY loans the law was passed to encourage.

 

[fskimospy]

Because the very laws they passed increased risky lending by design, AND caused the housing market to explode, driving prices through the roof.

I can't help you if you choose to deny the obvious. But NONE of this would have happened if the dems had not passed the laws deregulating the banks so they could offer high risk loans with reduced risk to themselves in an effort to extend home ownership to those who previously could not qualify for loans. Period. THESE are the loans that defaulted. The VERY loans the law was passed to encourage.

If it's so obvious you should be able to quite easily find some empirical, nonpartisan, peer reviewed research to support your position. There's been loads written on the subject, and so I'm sure that the experts have supported your position thoroughly.

 

[fskimospy]

If you had READ the posts instead of poisoning the wells you'd see that the deregulation that occured had ONE purpose behind it: extending loans to those who formally would NEVER had qualified for one.

Even the CNN link I posted admits this.

The left latches on to the word "deregulation" and think it trumps their argument. It does not. In fact, it shows that when government PARTIALLY deregulates OR regulates with SOCIAL ENGINEERING in mind, they destroy entire industries.

Okay, so now only certain regulations are good. Should they simply have kept those regulations in place? Should they have added more on instead? Should they have removed all regulation? What regulation caused, in the absence of these other regulations, this catastrophe? Please provide evidence to back up your claims.

Also, still waiting for you to explain the simultaneous commercial real estate bubble.

EDIT: Oh, and how could I be 'poisoning the well' when I was responding to you? Poisoning the well is a pre-emptive attack, when my post was clearly attacking what you had already written. I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

 

[Amused]

Okay, so now only certain regulations are good. Should they simply have kept those regulations in place? Should they have added more on instead? Should they have removed all regulation? What regulation caused, in the absence of these other regulations, this catastrophe? Please provide evidence to back up your claims.

Also, still waiting for you to explain the simultaneous commercial real estate bubble.

EDIT: Oh, and how could I be 'poisoning the well' when I was responding to you? Poisoning the well is a pre-emptive attack, when my post was clearly attacking what you had already written. I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

No, you attacked the source I posted.

Meanwhile, if you would bother to READ the timeline, you would see that it was NOT total deregulation that caused this. It was a specific regulation changed to OVERRIDE state laws on home mortgages in an effort to extend credit to the non-credit worthy.

It was leftist social engineering that caused this. Other things may have added to the fire and the rightwing is definately not without some fault here... but the ROOT cause of all of this is that central policy to get people who previously could not qualify for a mortgage in homes.

It backfired, and ultimately destroyed an entire industry.

 

[JSt0rm]

this is all futile

 

[her209]

It was leftist social engineering that caused this. Other things may have added to the fire and the rightwing is definately not without some fault here... but the ROOT cause of all of this is that central policy to get people who previously could not qualify for a mortgage in homes.

It backfired, and ultimately destroyed an entire industry.

Who was in charge of Congress in 1999? It certainly wasn't the leftists.

 

[Amused]

Who was in charge of Congress in 1999? It certainly wasn't the leftists.

Please go back and read the timeline. This was not caused in 1999. No one event caused it. Many events caused it with the primary cause being the ideology that everyone deserves a house and shifting of regulations to encourage borrowing by people who had no business getting a loan.

And I never said the republicans didn't have any blame.

 

[dainthomas]

Please go back and read the timeline. This was not caused in 1999. No one event caused it. Many events caused it with the primary cause being the ideology that everyone deserves a house and shifting of regulations to encourage borrowing by people who had no business getting a loan.

And I never said the republicans didn't have any blame.

By calling it leftist social engineering, that's certainly implied.

Housing prices peaked in '05, and the dems weren't even in power until '06. So I don't even know how they would have MOST of the blame.

 

[Amused]

By calling it leftist social engineering, that's certainly implied.

Housing prices peaked in '05, and the dems weren't even in power until '06. So I don't even know how they would have MOST of the blame.

Um, it took DECADES for this to happen. This did not come about in just a few years. The snowball got rolling in 77. Housing prices were going up up up the whole time. The worst was only in the 90s and 00s

Like I said, read the timeline.

 

[OrByte]

Okay, so now only certain regulations are good. Should they simply have kept those regulations in place? Should they have added more on instead? Should they have removed all regulation? What regulation caused, in the absence of these other regulations, this catastrophe? Please provide evidence to back up your claims.

Also, still waiting for you to explain the simultaneous commercial real estate bubble.

EDIT: Oh, and how could I be 'poisoning the well' when I was responding to you? Poisoning the well is a pre-emptive attack, when my post was clearly attacking what you had already written. I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

nice to see you back around these parts sir!

 

[fskimospy]

No, you attacked the source I posted.

Meanwhile, if you would bother to READ the timeline, you would see that it was NOT total deregulation that caused this. It was a specific regulation changed to OVERRIDE state laws on home mortgages in an effort to extend credit to the non-credit worthy.

It was leftist social engineering that caused this. Other things may have added to the fire and the rightwing is definately not without some fault here... but the ROOT cause of all of this is that central policy to get people who previously could not qualify for a mortgage in homes.

It backfired, and ultimately destroyed an entire industry.

I'm just going to assume that my repeated requests for any empirical, nonpartisan evidence, along with an explanation of the corresponding commercial bubble will continue to be ignored. This is not surprising.

More capital letters are not equal to more evidence. If you do decide to back up your posts with actual objective evidence as opposed to fringe right wing opinion pieces, I will be happy to discuss it with you.

EDIT: And attacking the source you posted would not be 'poisoning the well', that would be an ad hominem attack. To be clear though, my dismissal of your sources was mostly a question of expediency. About a topic this well studied and this thoroughly talked about, if your point is valid it will be available from a reputable source. Reading blog posts from non-credible sources is just a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Amused]

I'm just going to assume that my repeated requests for any empirical, nonpartisan evidence, along with an explanation of the corresponding commercial bubble will continue to be ignored. This is not surprising.

More capital letters are not equal to more evidence. If you do decide to back up your posts with actual objective evidence as opposed to fringe right wing opinion pieces, I will be happy to discuss it with you.

EDIT: And attacking the source you posted would not be 'poisoning the well', that would be an ad hominem attack. To be clear though, my dismissal of your sources was mostly a question of expediency. About a topic this well studied and this thoroughly talked about, if your point is valid it will be available from a reputable source. Reading blog posts from non-credible sources is just a waste of everyone's time.

So I suppose the CNN artice wasn't reliable enough. They too, pointed a finger at the deregulation aimed at extending loans to lower income folks as the root cause as well.

Oh well. The problem here is, you aren't willing to see anything you don't want to see.

Oh, and: Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

By implying that the source of the info is tainted (the timeline I posted which is FACTUALLY correct and you have YET to disprove any part of it), and therefore not worth addressing, you poison the wells. You are attacking the source instead of the points.

It's the same when people immediately disregard a story from Fox News. They attack Fox Instead of addressing the facts.

It fits. It works. As for ad hominem, poisoning the wells IS an ad hominem attack.

 

[fskimospy]

So I suppose the CNN artice wasn't reliable enough. They too, pointed a finger at the deregulation aimed at extending loans to lower income folks as the root cause as well.

Oh well. The problem here is, you aren't willing to see anything you don't want to see.

Oh, and: Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

By implying that the source of the info is tainted (the timeline I posted which is FACTUALLY correct and you have YET to disprove any part of it), and therefore not worth addressing, you poison the wells. You are attacking the source instead of the points.

It's the same when people immediately disregard a story from Fox News. They attack Fox Instead of addressing the facts.

It fits. It works. As for ad hominem, poisoning the wells IS an ad hominem attack.

How hard is this to understand? You can't preemptively attack a source when you are RESPONDING to a post that contains that source. That's a fundamental temporal ordering problem.

No, the CNN article is laughably inadequate to prove your point. An article about how it was a bad idea to remove some regulations does not in any way prove that government action in the housing sector led to the crash. What it provides evidence for is that a lack of government interference in the housing market led to the crash.

I'm really not sure how to make this clearer, if you think the government caused the crash by meddling in the market, you have to provide evidence how government meddling caused the crash, not how the government contributed to it by meddling less. I specifically detailed the sort of information you should be looking to provide in order to prove your point in a previous post, and I have requested it multiple times. I have asked you to explain evidence that directly challenges your core assumptions and you have ignored it repeatedly. You have simply continued with the same points over and over again as if you hope that repetition will make them more valid. It won't.

 

[fskimospy]

nice to see you back around these parts sir!

Thanks! If this thread is any measure, I won't be able to handle it for long. The crazy people are still out in full force.

 

[Amused]

How hard is this to understand? You can't preemptively attack a source when you are RESPONDING to a post that contains that source. That's a fundamental temporal ordering problem.

No, the CNN article is laughably inadequate to prove your point. An article about how it was a bad idea to remove some regulations does not in any way prove that government action in the housing sector led to the crash. What it provides evidence for is that a lack of government interference in the housing market led to the crash.

I'm really not sure how to make this clearer, if you think the government caused the crash by meddling in the market, you have to provide evidence how government meddling caused the crash, not how the government contributed to it by meddling less. I specifically detailed the sort of information you should be looking to provide in order to prove your point in a previous post, and I have requested it multiple times. I have asked you to explain evidence that directly challenges your core assumptions and you have ignored it repeatedly. You have simply continued with the same points over and over again as if you hope that repetition will make them more valid. It won't.

The evidence is there for you to see. You have not disproven a single thing in the timeline. Not one thing. Hell, you haven't even addressed it besides attacking the source.

They are valid. Only YOU and your ideological buddies don't think it is.

 

[fskimospy]

The evidence is there for you to see. You have not disproven a single thing in the timeline. Not one thing. Hell, you haven't even addressed it besides attacking the source.

They are valid. Only YOU and your ideological buddies don't think it is.

Huh? Do you know how evidence works? Nothing in that timeline is backed up by a single piece of empirical evidence. Your ridiculous timeline simply assumes causation without proving it.

You have made a positive statement. I don't have to disprove a single thing you've written, the burden is on you to provide evidence to back up your claims. Linking to a random blogger's opinion of causation doesn't count as evidence in the real world. This is why I keep asking you over and over again to do that. You are either unwilling or unable to do so, and it means your argument doesn't deserve a tenth of the time I've already given it.

This is really basic stuff, man. If you want what you say to be taken seriously, then use some serious evidence. Look for some regressions trying to isolate the effect of Fannie and Freddie's behavior to the subprime market, things like that. Do you understand? Like, real evidence, not some blogger shouting crap about 'Jimmuh Carter'.

I refuse to believe you can't understand the huge gaping holes in your evidence.

 

[shira]

Huh? Do you know how evidence works? Nothing in that timeline is backed up by a single piece of empirical evidence. Your ridiculous timeline simply assumes causation without proving it.

You have made a positive statement. I don't have to disprove a single thing you've written, the burden is on you to provide evidence to back up your claims. Linking to a random blogger's opinion of causation doesn't count as evidence in the real world. This is why I keep asking you over and over again to do that. You are either unwilling or unable to do so, and it means your argument doesn't deserve a tenth of the time I've already given it.

This is really basic stuff, man. If you want what you say to be taken seriously, then use some serious evidence. Look for some regressions trying to isolate the effect of Fannie and Freddie's behavior to the subprime market, things like that. Do you understand? Like, real evidence, not some blogger shouting crap about 'Jimmuh Carter'.

I refuse to believe you can't understand the huge gaping holes in your evidence.

Amused knows he's got nothing, but he's too intellectually dishonest to admit it.

 

[Zebo]

Amused is FOS on this.

Loans were easier to make to 84% liars loans NOT covered by CRA because of thier chained to your debt for life "bankruptcy reform."

Loans were eaier to make because when they sold a $750,000 house to a hairdresser, a loan they knew would fail, and even bet for it to fail with AIG, banks fraudulently slapped AAA on them and sold them to your retirement account.

Loans were easier to make because Republican Justice sued states who tried to stop liars loans.

Loans were esaier to make because Republican Paulson went to SEC and changed leverage limits of banks.

This was a bi partisan asset stripping of Americans. Wake up. Been happen for awhile now.

 

[Zebo]

FYI I'm a proponent of 20% down 30 yr fixed simple loans. Democrats fucked that up and left you no skin in the game with CRA, doomed to fail.

 

[Amused]

Amused is FOS on this.

Loans were easier to make to 84% liars loans NOT covered by CRA because of thier chained to your debt for life "bankruptcy reform."

Loans were eaier to make because when they sold a $750,000 house to a hairdresser, a loan they knew would fail, and even bet for it to fail with AIG, banks fraudulently slapped AAA on them and sold them to your retirement account.

Loans were easier to make because Republican Justice sued states who tried to stop liars loans.

Loans were esaier to make because Republican Paulson went to SEC and changed leverage limits of banks.

This was a bi partisan asset stripping of Americans. Wake up. Been happen for awhile now.

Those loans were all made possible by the deregulation designed to get low income, bad creadit risk people mortgages.

Had these laws NOT been passed by the democrats, NONE of the rest would have happened.

Full of shit my ass.