| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2008 02:23:29 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Could any of this be caused in the slightest by greed, or is that too simplistic? |
Depends on how you define "greed" and who you think was being "greedy"... This is a system-wide problem. You can make the argument that the top dogs in the "system" were gaming it for their own enrichment, with no eye for the long-term consequences, and there's some truth in that, but it's not the whole story.
Just like there's some truth in Ann Coulter's view of "Clintonomics" being the "cause" of the problem. That's really too simplistic as well, but nevertheless the Federal Government did take some ill-advised (in hindsight) steps to juice the economy up and that's what we're dealing with now, the fallout from that, and from a lot of other crap that's been going on too long.
R. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:24:24 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by bassbone:
On a quick google, i found the source from the soothsayer of conversative 'truth' - Ann Coulter... |
'nuff said.
From the mouth of the racist-hatemonger, I hardly expect less. |
Exactly why I wisely let her words speak rather than allow the blind knee-jerk reaction to her insightful commentary (as exhibited here) mar the truth of what she pointed out.
Still no lies shown. Interesting. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:26:54 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by bassbone:
On a quick google, i found the source from the soothsayer of conversative 'truth' - Ann Coulter... |
'nuff said.
From the mouth of the racist-hatemonger, I hardly expect less. |
Exactly why I wisely let her words speak rather than allow the blind knee-jerk reaction to her insightful commentary (as exhibited here) mar the truth of what she pointed out.
Still no lies shown. Interesting. |
When a liar speaks, there is no truth. You call her insightful, I say she's a liar. I have a lot of other words to describe her; racist hatemonger is just the tip of the iceberg. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:29:35 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by "Column":
Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn't a joke -- it's a fact. |
Interesting, I just asked my boss- who's been auditing mortgage files since 1982- he's never heard of welfare payments being acceptable as a source of income. Unemployment can be considered as a source of income- however they can only be considered if it a result of seasonal layoffs and the borrower can show via taxes a two year prior history of receiving unemployment benefits. It has been this way since at least the 1980's.
Originally posted by "Column":
In Bush's first year in office, the White House chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, warned that the government's "implicit subsidy" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with loans to unqualified borrowers, was creating a huge risk for the entire financial system. |
Yet, when the Republicans were in control of congress and the senate they did nothing.
Originally posted by "Column":
Rep. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no "concern about housing." |
Oh right, I forgot Barney Frank gets 1,500 votes, while everyone else only gets one. And since he is gay, that gives this all that much more impact.
Originally posted by "Column":
Now, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats' two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients. |
I am not worried, according to McCain you're only middle class if you make more than four million per year. I need about $3.9 million more per year to have to bail anyone out.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:32:19 PM · #30 |
=]
Well, they ALL agree that more regulation SOLVES the problem ⦠so MAYBE the "FREE" Market isn't capable of solving all the problems.
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Could any of this be caused in the slightest by greed, or is that too simplistic? |
Of course not. It is always a Democrat vs Republican thing. |
|
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:34:53 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by bassbone:
On a quick google, i found the source from the soothsayer of conversative 'truth' - Ann Coulter... |
'nuff said.
From the mouth of the racist-hatemonger, I hardly expect less. |
Exactly why I wisely let her words speak rather than allow the blind knee-jerk reaction to her insightful commentary (as exhibited here) mar the truth of what she pointed out.
Still no lies shown. Interesting. |
It isn't that the facts are lies. It is the linking of facts that may be unrelated. In medicine we call this "true-true unrelated". Both fact A and fact B are true, but one does not cause the other. The financial crisis is obviously quite complex, and I just laugh at the attempt to narrow this down to one root cause. It becomes even more suspicous when the one root cause is located in the other party's camp AND happened 13 years ago. Yes, things can take a long time to exert an effect, but it all smells of spin to me. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:36:59 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by bassbone:
On a quick google, i found the source from the soothsayer of conversative 'truth' - Ann Coulter... |
'nuff said.
From the mouth of the racist-hatemonger, I hardly expect less. |
Just to be sure that I'm up on the finger pointing - if Olbermann rebuts it do you say that he is just a hate filled left winger? |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:36:59 PM · #33 |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:37:17 PM · #34 |
BTW, if this has been going on since before Bush took office, why weren't the Bush administration people pushing the panic button. Shouldn't they have gone on television and said- "People of America, we're screwed!!!! We must do something immediatly our financial markets are melting down."
Instead I remember Bush talking about how housing ownership was at an all time high and the economy was just peachy keen (okay, he didn't use those exact words to describe the economy).
They had eight years to do something about this. Failure to act, failure to lead- thank you Mr. Bush.
Of course we can't say McCain should have acted on anything- he doesn't understand economics (either that or he was too busy off inventing the black berry).
Bush said in 2004:
"Thanks to being the most productive workforce in America, and I might say, thanks to good policies, this economy is strong and it's getting stronger," Bush told supporters.
Noting that 68 percent of Americans own their own homes, Bush said, "Home sales were the highest ever recently. That's exciting news for the country."
Not seeing anything about the sky falling in.
Message edited by author 2008-09-25 14:45:04.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:38:53 PM · #35 |
Ann Coulter quotes
This one is great:
"Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole."
She's a joke. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:41:04 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by metatate:
"Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole." |
So that means she doesn't like liberals? :-) |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:46:33 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by metatate:
"Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole." |
So that means she doesn't like liberals? :-) |
Only dead ones. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:57:41 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Now, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats' two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients.
|
Am I the only one who is a little puzzled over the end of the piece quoted? Since when were Wall Street bankers firmly in the democrats pocket? I would think they would be dyed-in-the-wool deregulationist republicans. Am I just crazy?
Message edited by author 2008-09-25 14:57:57. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:01:20 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by bassbone:
On a quick google, i found the source from the soothsayer of conversative 'truth' - Ann Coulter... |
'nuff said.
From the mouth of the racist-hatemonger, I hardly expect less. |
Just to be sure that I'm up on the finger pointing - if Olbermann rebuts it do you say that he is just a hate filled left winger? |
Who's Olbermann? |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:03:20 PM · #40 |
"Now, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democratsâ two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients."
This quote right here shows her bias and lack of objective reporting. In fact, this isn't reporting as there are no facts. First, all tax payers, not just middle class ones, will be "forced to bail out the Democrats." Which honestly, its not the Democrats being bailed out, nor is anyone being 'forced.' They are not taking money out of my hand while holding a gun or other deadly object to my head.
So, yes, this is biased, the writer having a decidedly anti-democratic agenda. I'm sure it was posted by someone who also has a decidedly anti-democratic agenda.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:11:58 PM · #41 |
Here's your first lie hawkeye...
Now, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats' two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients.
Wall Street bets on Obama
The title may seem to enforce the idea above, but read the article and you will find two facts which show otherwise:
Wall Street seems to have selected Barack Obama for its own major investment this election cycle. Traditionally an industry that gives to Republicans, securities and investment companies have been pouring money into the coffers of both the Illinois senator and former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, giving nearly $15 million combined to the two, according to Reuters, citing data from CRP.
Overall, 57 percent of this industry's contributions to the race (including all candidates who have run) have been to Democratic candidates. Since the start of 2007, Obama has received $7.9 million, with Clinton only about $800,000 behind. Should Obama continue to be this industry's financial favorite, it will become the first time since 1994 that the Democrats will have brought in more Wall Street donations than the Republicans.
Man, and that wasn't even that hard to find...
Message edited by author 2008-09-25 15:12:31. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:15:01 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by bassbone:
On a quick google, i found the source from the soothsayer of conversative 'truth' - Ann Coulter... |
'nuff said.
From the mouth of the racist-hatemonger, I hardly expect less. |
Just to be sure that I'm up on the finger pointing - if Olbermann rebuts it do you say that he is just a hate filled left winger? |
Who's Olbermann? |
//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
Message edited by author 2008-09-25 15:15:34. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:26:26 PM · #43 |
| You know, I really should just ignore this drivel as it is really irritating me. But I just want to say that, in my majority black, democratic county, there are less foreclosures than in a close-by, majority white, upper middle class, republican county. Hmmm... makes that article kind of suspect with regard to truth. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:30:58 PM · #44 |
Well, she apparently said:
"I'm more of a man than any liberal."
Awesome.
Originally posted by dahkota:
So, yes, this is biased, the writer having a decidedly anti-democratic agenda. I'm sure it was posted by someone who also has a decidedly anti-democratic agenda. |
|
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:34:45 PM · #45 |
A response.
Originally posted by another "column":
Iâd certainly agree that at the heart of the problem is the large number of unsuitable loans made by US firms. But why were so many such loans made? The article Iain quotes blames political correctness, claiming that moves to shake out discrimination from financial firms resulted in them having to lend to people who couldnât afford the loans.
Itâs certainly a provocative view, and itâs also wrong. Because the truth is that the dishing out of unsuitable loans left, right and centre was driven by out-of-control firms and sales staff that were indulging in all sorts of dodgy (and often illegal) activities to push loans upon people.
A common practice, for example, was to make loans with hidden charges, so the sales person got their sales targets and commission, and it wasnât until latter that the person with the loan discovered that it cost more than they had been told, so they then couldnât afford it any more and defaulted.
Many of their activities make the behaviour of electricity firms here (remember all the problems about door-to-door sales staff conning people into changing their supplier?) seem rather tame by comparison.
And why was action not taken to get this industry back on the straight and narrow and to ensure sales staff were honest about loan details? Not because of do-gooding anti-discrimination campaigners, as in the version Iain quotes, but actually because the Bush Administration blocked action at every turn, as this recent piece from (now ex-Governer) Eliot Spitzer explains:
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumersâ ability to repay, making loans with deceptive âteaserâ rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New Yorkâs, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
This view - blaming criminal activity, not anti-discrimination moves - is backed up by evidence from the FBI that in 2005 criminal proceeds from mortgage fraud topped $1 billion. |
Source here: "Column"
Let the decrying of the "bias" of the source from the OP and his sympathizers commence.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:40:52 PM · #46 |
Hm. I just read some information about Coulter. You (OP) actually quote her as an expert on anything?
|
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:49:23 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
See, glad2badad... This is what they resort to in the face of truth. |
No, that's what he "resorted" to after you quoted a biased column and wouldn't name the source. His sarcasm ("The Weekly Fascist") was not so far off the mark (Ann Coulter).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It isn't that the facts are lies. It is the linking of facts that may be unrelated. In medicine we call this "true-true unrelated". Both fact A and fact B are true, but one does not cause the other. The financial crisis is obviously quite complex, and I just laugh at the attempt to narrow this down to one root cause. It becomes even more suspicous when the one root cause is located in the other party's camp AND happened 13 years ago. Yes, things can take a long time to exert an effect, but it all smells of spin to me. |
Well put.
Message edited by author 2008-09-25 15:55:41. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:49:36 PM · #48 |
See also:
Originally posted by another hole in Coulter's theory:
Contrary to popular belief, low-income borrowers had only 149,173, or 7.57 percent, of 2006 subprime-rate loans. The report also concluded that the majority of subprime-rate loans were originated in predominately-White geographic regions (areas representing census tracts less than 30 percent minority).
Compared to joint applicants, the report also found that single men and single women received the highest share of 2006 subprime-rate loans. The frequency of subprime-rate loans for males without co-applicants and females without co-applicants was almost even at 32.60 percent and 32.21 percent, respectively. Together single borrowers received 64.81 percent of the subprime-rate loans originated in 2006.
For all racial and ethnic groups except Black, single men had the highest share of subprime-rate loans; White, 35.67 percent, Hispanic, 46.69 percent, Asian, 38.82 percent, Native American, 34.03 percent and Hawaiian, 32.44 percent, respectively. For Blacks however, single women had the highest share of 2006 subprime-rate loans at 42.10 percent followed by single Black men at 33.08 percent. According to Maurice Jourdain-Earl, co-founder and managing director of ComplianceTech, this data could imply more serious ramifications than previously considered, âThese presumably single borrowers do not have two income sources to support the mortgage ⦠and if these borrowers are single-head of households experiencing trouble making their mortgage payments, what about the children?â
Jourdain-Earl expresses that the problem with portraying the foreclosure crisis as a minority and low-income issue is that it affects how solutions will be approached. âIf it is believed that subprime-rate loans were predominately made to Black, Hispanic or low-income households, housing policy-makers might approach solutions with biases about qualifications of those groups, such as low education, bad credit and low-paying jobs, etc. There could be a tendency to write-off the subprime lending debacle as a type of affirmative action gone bad. We must acknowledge that the foreclosure crisis affects broader and more demographically diverse segments of society. This politically responsible approach will likely change the tone, climate and context of how solutions are crafted.â
Jourdain-Earl also notes that âNot enough research and media attention has been devoted to other causes of the subprime crisis that might have race and ethnicity effects. Issues of steering, weak underwriting, fraud and discrimination have not been aggressively investigated. Despite the presence of federal regulation and periodic examinations for Safety and Soundness, Community Reinvestment Act and Fair Lending compliance, efforts to uncover whether subprime-rate loans can be explained by legitimate risk factors will be impaired if they are based on erroneous assumptions about the demographic distribution of subprime-rate loans.
He concludes, âTo resolve the true issues, the subprime lending meltdown must be addressed as a nationwide problem with aspects that affect Whites as well as minorities, in suburban, rural and urban communities.â |
Source: Report Shows Subprime-Rate Lending Dominant with Non-Hispanic Whites and Upper Income Borrowers
Coulter, Hawkeye, et. al. - they don't need facts, they have an agenda instead.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:53:41 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by bassbone:
On a quick google, i found the source from the soothsayer of conversative 'truth' - Ann Coulter... |
'nuff said.
From the mouth of the racist-hatemonger, I hardly expect less. |
Just to be sure that I'm up on the finger pointing - if Olbermann rebuts it do you say that he is just a hate filled left winger? |
Who's Olbermann? |
//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ |
I haven't found any quotes from Olbermann that display anything like the racism, vitriol and religious hatred that Coulter displays regularly, so, to answer your question: No.
I did find this quote from Olbermann about Coulter:
Originally posted by Kieth Olbermann:
[Referring to author Ann Coulter's comments on Barack Obama's autobiography]
"She reminds us of her former spectacular tone dead bone-headiness, such as when she writes of Barack Obama's autobiography, quote, 'The book revealed Obama to be a f-ing lunatic. Obama is about to be our next president. You may want to take a peek. If only people had read Mein Kampf.' And we have to congratulate Senator Obama -- compared to Hitler and Tiger Woods in the same week."
|
Message edited by author 2008-09-25 16:13:15. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 04:02:21 PM · #50 |
| Having an agenda is wrong. Anyone having an agenda is lieing and there is no truth in what they say. Only conservatives have agendas. All Republicans lie. |
|
