or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › People who believe in fairy tales and predictions from them are stupid!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

People who believe in fairy tales and predictions from them are stupid! - Page 5

post #161 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

blah blah blah

long time...blah...burp...

...8 years of mistakes....blah burp

...bah blah GOP...Obama...blah

burp gurgle...worst than expected...great depression...pfft



SSDP

And what pray tell do you offer as a alternative or solution?

Ps. Besides smart ass remarks that is.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #162 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And what pray tell do you offer as a alternative or solution?

To what exactly?

Do you truly support the notion of freedom to defined previously in this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

Freedom as it pertains to people in my mind means the ability to act within the rights of the individual without stepping on someone elses freedoms.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #163 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

To what exactly?

Do you truly support the notion of freedom to defined previously in this thread:

To our leader or weren't you reading the thread? And as far as freedom I don't believe the Republicans offer a superior product. Even if I were to believe Libertarian ideals were workable Ron Paul won't be elected so what do you have for us MJ?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #164 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

To our leader or weren't you reading the thread?

Just clarifying what you were asking about.

Anyone who will cut taxes (a lot...and permanently), cut spending (a lot...and permanently) actually end the military adventures and stop acting like an arrogant prick.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And as far as freedom I don't believe the Republicans offer a superior product. Even if I were to believe Libertarian ideals were workable Ron Paul won't be elected so what do you have for us MJ?

Do you truly support the notion of freedom to defined previously in this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

Freedom as it pertains to people in my mind means the ability to act within the rights of the individual without stepping on someone else’s freedoms.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #165 of 226
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


My criticism of Bush is well documented. Perhaps you could provide some quotes for yours.

And how about something while he was in office if you're looking for them.

And what are you offering as an alternative? Republicans? They got us into this in the first place. MJ's 3rd party that can't win? So what do you offer as an alternative trunptman?

I didn't even look that hard and found these two from 2003.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...2&postcount=10

I've complained around here several times that Bush is not especially conservative. People here commented like I had claimed the moon was made of cheese.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...9&postcount=19

Bush is for giving the tax credit to poor working folks who were excluded this last time. Even though they pay no taxes they get the credit back. (Means they get $1000 for paying nothing) That is not conservative.

He pushed through the No Child Left Behind bill which was a bill essentually started by and helped along by Ted Kennedy. Conservative Republicans had been discussing dismantling the Department of Education, not growing it.

Bush created an entirely new department in the federal government. Sure part of it was just shuffling older departments around but still it is adding without subtracting anything.

Bush's dad gave us both Clarence Thomas and David Souter as Supreme Court justices. People are just as worried about Bush Jr.'s selections because he isn't a true conservative. Remember Bush Sr. raised taxes and David Souter votes about as liberal as is possible on the court.

Bush is hardly a true conservative. His tax cuts likely rolled back Clinton's tax increases, but I don't think he has rolled back his Dad's increases yet.


That wasn't even a problem with Bush but with multiple Bush/Republican presidents, spelled specifically with court choices, tax policy and federal growth.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #166 of 226
Thread Starter 
Hey Jimmac, I found one more for you too. This stuff is so accurate and from SEVEN years ago that you should be paying me cash to read me.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...52&postcount=3

I think it will cause a bit of questioning within the party regard what true fiscal conservatism looks like. If the nominee after Bush appears to be a free spender as well I could imagine a challenge from a third party Perot type again.

As for the Democrats, they will only come across as a viable alternative on spending when they stop complaining that Bush hasn’t spent enough on every program proposed. That is what is the most amazing thing of all. I’ve not seen a single Democratic press conference deploring Bush for spending too much. Even Clinton, who fought against the newly Republican Congress only had balanced budgets with the help of the Social Security surplus for most years. Yet Clinton was credible in some regards because he would claim some spending proposals were too much and would argue to target efforts instead. (Again he was the absolute master of this)

The point is that both Republicans and Democrat spend way too much. The only real difference is who will kill the economy while attempting to do so or who will kill a 85% working solution to take care of the 15%. I have read a few theories lately about raising the top rate a few percent as Clinton did when the economy is roaring along as a sort of hedge against inflation. I’m going to do some more reading on those as it does have some credibility in my book. I’m sure the middle class would approve of that instead of interest rate hikes as well.

Likewise Clinton and to his own credit, Dean as well have suggested using government programs to plug holes in medical coverage instead of ripping the whole enchalada up for everyone. Of course if they were both honest, they would start tackling the AMA, toss out the prescription medication benefit (and replace it with nothing) , realistically address medical care for illegal immigrants, and finally just admit that everyone can’t live to be 100 for the cost of free. (Medicare)

The lie Republicans have bought into is that they can “hold down” the costs of many of these programs, and not have to be the bad guys cutting them or gutting them, while trying to grow the economy at 4-5% to try to keep up with the program growth. The Democrats don’t lie in this regard, they just want to tax us to death.


I'd say not only was that profoundly accurate then, but rings just as true today. The whole discussion about Medicare reform discussion hits exactly the points I noted seven years ago. RINO versus Tea Party is about continuing to buy the lie versus real reform. The third party rise has been the Tea Party and they have been all about fiscal conservatism.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #167 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


So in summary he does advocate anarchy. There's enough vagueness in his answer that it could be taken either way. And you ( once again ) are out in left field on the subject.

So in summary, you interpret his statement by reading into it, so that's the proper interpretation. Gotcha.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #168 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So you're picking the part of the definition that fits your argument. But as you can see that's not the only way of looking at it.

Actually, that appears to be what you're doing. "Absence of government" is the first definition, and yours is the 2nd or 3rd down the list. hmmm.

Quote:

Given that we don't have anything close to a utopian society ( and aren't even on track to acheiving that ) I don't think that's the closest definition to the subject.

So the definition is invalid because we don't have a utopia now? There is a little thing called abstract thinking you might want to try.
Quote:

And if you think that just removing the government will get us there I'm going to have a good laugh!

Strawman. He didn't claim that....you just made it up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Why don't you stop trying peddle your personal opinions as if they were gospel?

trumpt writes opinions that he bases on facts. This board is a place to post and discuss those opinions. You seem free to write yours, so why can he not?

Quote:
Also why do you refuse to look at where this all started? Oh! That's right. It's in the past so it doesn't count ( it only counts if it's a democrat ).

Yes, let's do that. Where did it start, jimmac?

Quote:

Also I've stated repeatedly that I'm not pleased with everything Obama's doing but he's still better than the Greedy Ol' Party.

Excellent. Let's have a list of things you don't like, and reasons for them.


Quote:
And trumpy lots of people were saying this was a really bad problem from the start ( before Obama ). The worst since the Great Depression ( I don't know how you could compare it to something worse ) and yet those in control weren't listening then.

Which people? How does that support your argument? Also, I think you have no idea how bad it actually was and is. It's far worse than the GD in many ways.

Quote:

And you know 8 years of stupid mistakes back in the first decade of this century is pretty long period of time also.

Yes, yes...it's all Bush and the GOP. See, their WARS were the problem. Never mind that Barney Frank and company ignored the Bush Administration's warnings on the mortgage industry. Never mind that Senate and House Dems resisted mortgage industry reform at every turn. Never mind that the Feds started pushing banks around under Clinton, forcing them to make low income and no doc loans. Just ignore all of that, and blame it on one party. It's much easier for you that way.



Quote:
My criticism of Bush is well documented. Perhaps you could provide some quotes for yours.

Uh, yeah...because you don't support him. How about some criticism of Obama? By the way, trump DID provide documentation.

Quote:
And how about something while he was in office if you're looking for them.

And what are you offering as an alternative? Republicans? They got us into this in the first place. MJ's 3rd party that can't win? So what do you offer as an alternative trunptman?

Better than what we have. 9% unemployment, near-stagnant growth, huge deficits, 3 wars, coming and massive inflation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Hey Jimmac, I found one more for you too. This stuff is so accurate and from SEVEN years ago that you should be paying me cash to read me...[

Oh, he'll ignore it or dismiss it. He's blindly partisan. jimmac does not support parties because of their positions. He supports the Democratic party because he's a Democrat. Instead of reasons for voting one way or the other, he finds justification after the fact.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #169 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I didn't even look that hard and found these two from 2003.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...2&postcount=10

I've complained around here several times that Bush is not especially conservative. People here commented like I had claimed the moon was made of cheese.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...9&postcount=19

Bush is for giving the tax credit to poor working folks who were excluded this last time. Even though they pay no taxes they get the credit back. (Means they get $1000 for paying nothing) That is not conservative.

He pushed through the No Child Left Behind bill which was a bill essentually started by and helped along by Ted Kennedy. Conservative Republicans had been discussing dismantling the Department of Education, not growing it.

Bush created an entirely new department in the federal government. Sure part of it was just shuffling older departments around but still it is adding without subtracting anything.

Bush's dad gave us both Clarence Thomas and David Souter as Supreme Court justices. People are just as worried about Bush Jr.'s selections because he isn't a true conservative. Remember Bush Sr. raised taxes and David Souter votes about as liberal as is possible on the court.

Bush is hardly a true conservative. His tax cuts likely rolled back Clinton's tax increases, but I don't think he has rolled back his Dad's increases yet.


That wasn't even a problem with Bush but with multiple Bush/Republican presidents, spelled specifically with court choices, tax policy and federal growth.

Some how given all the things he did I'm a little Underwhelmed. However I am impressed that you said something. I must have missed those.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #170 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Actually, that appears to be what you're doing. "Absence of government" is the first definition, and yours is the 2nd or 3rd down the list. hmmm.



So the definition is invalid because we don't have a utopia now? There is a little thing called abstract thinking you might want to try.


Strawman. He didn't claim that....you just made it up.




trumpt writes opinions that he bases on facts. This board is a place to post and discuss those opinions. You seem free to write yours, so why can he not?



Yes, let's do that. Where did it start, jimmac?



Excellent. Let's have a list of things you don't like, and reasons for them.




Which people? How does that support your argument? Also, I think you have no idea how bad it actually was and is. It's far worse than the GD in many ways.



Yes, yes...it's all Bush and the GOP. See, their WARS were the problem. Never mind that Barney Frank and company ignored the Bush Administration's warnings on the mortgage industry. Never mind that Senate and House Dems resisted mortgage industry reform at every turn. Never mind that the Feds started pushing banks around under Clinton, forcing them to make low income and no doc loans. Just ignore all of that, and blame it on one party. It's much easier for you that way.







Uh, yeah...because you don't support him. How about some criticism of Obama? By the way, trump DID provide documentation.



Better than what we have. 9% unemployment, near-stagnant growth, huge deficits, 3 wars, coming and massive inflation.



Oh, he'll ignore it or dismiss it. He's blindly partisan. jimmac does not support parties because of their positions. He supports the Democratic party because he's a Democrat. Instead of reasons for voting one way or the other, he finds justification after the fact.

Hey SDW my voting stasis is still independent ( from when I was a Libertarian. I've never changed it hoping that someone would have a better idea. So far no luck. And just because the situation seems more dire I think we were at a cross roads back in 2008. Had we gone down a different way we might be standing soup lines right now. And the fact remains that's where this started. I'm not letting Obama off any hook as well. He's done plenty that I don't like I just sweeping Mr. Bush's actions under the rug is a gross injustice.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #171 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And just because the situation seems more dire I think we were at a cross roads back in 2008.

We were at a cross road...and we took the wrong one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Had we gone down a different way we might be standing soup lines right now.

Unlikely. If we had done what should have been done: Stop the money printing, cut taxes and spending (and end a couple of the wars) we'd be in full blown recovery right now. As it stands all they did was kick the can a little down the road. Politically-speaking that might end up being a very short-sighted (not to mention economically ignorant) approach because the problems that didn't really get solved might rear their ugly head at an inopportune time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I don't like I just sweeping Mr. Bush's actions under the rug is a gross injustice.

Well then stop imagining that anyone here is doing that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #172 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

We were at a cross road...and we took the wrong one.




Unlikely. If we had done what should have been done: Stop the money printing, cut taxes and spending (and end a couple of the wars) we'd be in full blown recovery right now. As it stands all they did was kick the can a little down the road. Politically-speaking that might end up being a very short-sighted (not to mention economically ignorant) approach because the problems that didn't really get solved might rear their ugly head at an inopportune time.




Well then stop imagining that anyone here is doing that.

I disagree.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #173 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I disagree.

Of course you do. But you don't have any legitimate basis for this disagreement. The plain fact is that history and economic reality are not on Obama's (or your) side on this.

And another fact is that Obama just isn't all that bright on this area of things (and probably many other areas...his "skills" in foreign policy are clearly showing.) I used to go back and forth between him being intelligent and understanding what he was doing wouldn't actually work (which would make him evil) or being just plain dumb. I'm sticking with dumb (and arrogant) at this point. I think he thought his oratorical skills would solve every problem...if he spoke eloquently enough about something he could will it to be better. Oops.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #174 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey SDW my voting stasis is still independent ( from when I was a Libertarian. I've never changed it hoping that someone would have a better idea. So far no luck. And just because the situation seems more dire I think we were at a cross roads back in 2008. Had we gone down a different way we might be standing soup lines right now. And the fact remains that's where this started. I'm not letting Obama off any hook as well. He's done plenty that I don't like I just sweeping Mr. Bush's actions under the rug is a gross injustice.

1. You don't sound independent to me.

2. You think Obama and the Dems have the best ideas right now?

3. This did not start in 2008. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the roots of the crisis. Allow me to explain:

"This" can be traced back to the Carter Administration, under the Community Reinvestment Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...vision_history

In more recent times, it can be traced to the Clinton Administration.

Quote:
Regulatory changes 1995
In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[51] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36]

This is what really got "sub-prime" going. What the link does not tell you is that the Feds starting pushing banks to make loans to low income borrowers, to make no doc loans, etc. While I'm not blaming Clinton per se (Bush supported many of these policies to increase home ownership as well), this is where much of it started.

The second component was Credit Default Swaps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap

Investment banks grouped and sold CDS's to anyone that would buy. Subprimes were mixed with more traditional loans and given high investment grades. Backing all of this was the promise to pay the default guarantee. Then the housing plunge happened, as it was bound to. Borrower's started defaulting because they could no longer refinance as they were underwater on their loans. CDS's were called and investments on them plunged, sending companies like Lehman Bros. and AIG down the toilet.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration (with such actors such as John McCain) was warning on capital levels for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who back nearly all U.S. mortgages. Congressional Dems are on audio and video telling those who inquired that Fannie and Freddie were fiscally solvent. This turned out to be false. You know the rest.

That, jimmac, is "how this started." Let me know if you have any questions, and don't forget your homework.

Class dismissed.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #175 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. You don't sound independent to me.

2. You think Obama and the Dems have the best ideas right now?

3. This did not start in 2008. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the roots of the crisis. Allow me to explain:

"This" can be traced back to the Carter Administration, under the Community Reinvestment Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...vision_history

In more recent times, it can be traced to the Clinton Administration.



This is what really got "sub-prime" going. What the link does not tell you is that the Feds starting pushing banks to make loans to low income borrowers, to make no doc loans, etc. While I'm not blaming Clinton per se (Bush supported many of these policies to increase home ownership as well), this is where much of it started.

The second component was Credit Default Swaps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap

Investment banks grouped and sold CDS's to anyone that would buy. Subprimes were mixed with more traditional loans and given high investment grades. Backing all of this was the promise to pay the default guarantee. Then the housing plunge happened, as it was bound to. Borrower's started defaulting because they could no longer refinance as they were underwater on their loans. CDS's were called and investments on them plunged, sending companies like Lehman Bros. and AIG down the toilet.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration (with such actors such as John McCain) was warning on capital levels for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who back nearly all U.S. mortgages. Congressional Dems are on audio and video telling those who inquired that Fannie and Freddie were fiscally solvent. This turned out to be false. You know the rest.

That, jimmac, is "how this started." Let me know if you have any questions, and don't forget your homework.

Class dismissed.

Yes, yes, it's all the Democrats fault. And Clinton figures prominantly. Uh huh.

Well I disagree.


Quote:
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration (with such actors such as John McCain) was warning on capital levels for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who back nearly all U.S. mortgages. Congressional Dems are on audio and video telling those who inquired that Fannie and Freddie were fiscally solvent. This turned out to be false. You know the rest.

But you do sound, act, bark , and quack like a card carrying Republican. I'm sure they have all the answers.

And while we're at it since congress is so powerful why haven't we seen better times or even some improvement since they ( the republicans ) won back those seats?

Let me guess now that it's a democratic president it's all his fault. And before you start once again I have to make sure you understand I'm not totally pleased with Obama myself. But giving back to the people I saw as ignoring this problem for years ( just as much as anyone else did ) are the solution.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #176 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes, yes, it's all the Democrats fault. And Clinton figures prominantly. Uh huh.

Well I disagree.




But you do sound, act, bark , and quack like a card carrying Republican. I'm sure they have all the answers.

And while we're at it since congress is so powerful why haven't we seen better times or even some improvement since they ( the republicans ) won back those seats?

Let me guess now that it's a democratic president it's all his fault. And before you start once again I have to make sure you understand I'm not totally pleased with Obama myself. But giving back to the people I saw as ignoring this problem for years ( just as much as anyone else did ) are the solution.

Have any real responses here? This one was lacking anything substantial. What did actually cause this, any information you care to share, outside of your personal experiences? Links to data?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #177 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes, yes, it's all the Democrats fault. And Clinton figures prominantly. Uh huh.

Well I disagree.

Then you'd be wrong. What I posted is factual. It doesn't mean Bush wasn't involved, but what I posted is accurate.

Quote:




But you do sound, act, bark , and quack like a card carrying Republican. I'm sure they have all the answers.

I am a Republican. They do not have all the answers, but they have more than do the Dems at the moment.

Quote:

And while we're at it since congress is so powerful why haven't we seen better times or even some improvement since they ( the republicans ) won back those seats?

Uh, because not much has gotten through. The GOP house still must deal with the Dem house and POTUS. Do I need to explain bicameral legislatures to you?

Quote:

Let me guess now that it's a democratic president it's all his fault. And before you start once again I have to make sure you understand I'm not totally pleased with Obama myself. But giving back to the people I saw as ignoring this problem for years ( just as much as anyone else did ) are the solution.

Uh, you might guess that because...it's HIS AND HIS PARTY'S FAULT. Whose fault could it be, jimmac? The GOP? The GOP controls one half of one branch of government. They are unable to implement their agenda.

Funny how you don't want Obama to get the blame. With Bush it was all "the buck stops here, SDW!" Hmmm...look who's talking now.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #178 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Then you'd be wrong. What I posted is factual. It doesn't mean Bush wasn't involved, but what I posted is accurate.



I am a Republican. They do not have all the answers, but they have more than do the Dems at the moment.



Uh, because not much has gotten through. The GOP house still must deal with the Dem house and POTUS. Do I need to explain bicameral legislatures to you?



Uh, you might guess that because...it's HIS AND HIS PARTY'S FAULT. Whose fault could it be, jimmac? The GOP? The GOP controls one half of one branch of government. They are unable to implement their agenda.

Funny how you don't want Obama to get the blame. With Bush it was all "the buck stops here, SDW!" Hmmm...look who's talking now.

You know I suppose I could ask for links for your information but I'd rather see an unbiased analysis drawing the same conclusions of your historical trip down memory lane.

I just love how unresponsible for anything that went wrong during their time the Bush administration is in your mind.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #179 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Have any real responses here? This one was lacking anything substantial. What did actually cause this, any information you care to share, outside of your personal experiences? Links to data?

How about SDW's links to data? And why don't we ask the forum at large? Who here thinks SDW's take is an accurate one? I'll bet I can name the names of the persons who do.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #180 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How about SDW's links to data? And why don't we ask the forum at large? Who here thinks SDW's take is an accurate one? I'll bet I can name the names of the persons who do.

I believe you have asked him for his already. I however was speaking to you. I guess you have none? Or are you just refusing because you like playing games more? You can't hold others to higher standard than you yourself are willing to be held to.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #181 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I believe you have asked him for his already. I however was speaking to you. I guess you have none? Or are you just refusing because you like playing games more? You can't hold others to higher standard than you yourself are willing to be held to.

Well guys I guess no one here ( except for his conservative friends ) believes SDW's take on how this economic crisis started. Just as I suspected.

And I think I've made it clear ( dispite what NoahJ one of the conservatives says ) why I think the Bush administration is responsible. And if you don't know " why? " I guess you have selective memeory loss or you haven't been paying attention to what I've said.

Or simple obfuscation ( talk about " game playing " )..

Ps. Honestly for all the times I'm asked to repeat myself for some of the conservative lot here you'd think they all have Alzheimers.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #182 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You know I suppose I could ask for links for your information but I'd rather see an unbiased analysis drawing the same conclusions of your historical trip down memory lane.

I just love how unresponsible for anything that went wrong during their time the Bush administration is in your mind.

Links...to what? Everything I posted has been well documented previously. You honestly want links to Maxine Waters and Barney Frank talking about how Fannie and Freddie were solvent? This has been played ad nauseam, even in the mainstream media at times. You want links to the roots of financial crisis? You're honestly disagreeing as to the cause, or are you just trying to play "let's argue?"

Oh, and that last part you posted is a huge strawman. I never claimed Bush was unresponsible [sic] for the crisis. In fact, I specifically mentioned that Bush was not blameless--in my previous post, in fact!

Posted just recently by SDW2001, and ignored by jimmac:

Quote:
It doesn't mean Bush wasn't involved, but what I posted is accurate.

The Bush Administration was just as interested in touting home ownership as was the Clinton Administration. The Bush Administration supported the same no doc and low income loans as did the Clinton Administration. The difference is that the Bush Admin did warn on the balance sheets of Fannie and Freddie once they saw a potential problem with exposure to these loans, as did Senator McCain. These warnings were ignored by Obama's party (though he was not POTUS). These are facts that are undeniable--not my opinion.

The issue with you jimmac is that everything is seen through a partisan lens. Republicans=bad and Democrats=better. You justify these opinions with vagueness and platitudes, then attack those that actually wish to understand/explain the roots of a particular issue. Worse still, you shift to and fro with these platitudes when it suits you. And example is the Iraq War vs. The Economy. In 2003 to present, you said Bush was either "lying or incompetent" on WMD because the buck stopped with him. But that same meme doesn't apply to Obama re: the economy. Now we have "well it was really Bush's fault" and "he's just trying to clean up Bush's mess" and other such nonsense. You also are attacking the GOP and political opponents of Obama, clamoring about why things haven't improved since the Republicans "took over." Intellectual dishonesty, meaningless rhetoric and shifting standards. That's your MO.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #183 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well guys I guess no one here ( except for his conservative friends ) believes SDW's take on how this economic crisis started. Just as I suspected.

And I think I've made it clear ( dispite what NoahJ one of the conservatives says ) why I think the Bush administration is responsible. And if you don't know " why? " I guess you have selective memeory loss or you haven't been paying attention to what I've said.

Ps. Honestly for all the times I'm asked to repeat myself for some of the conservative lot here you'd think they all have Alzheimers.

There's a lot of irony in accusing others of having Alzheimers (or other mental defect) after writing that post.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #184 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Links...to what? Everything I posted has been well documented previously. You honestly want links to Maxine Waters and Barney Frank talking about how Fannie and Freddie were solvent? This has been played ad nauseam, even in the mainstream media at times. You want links to the roots of financial crisis? You're honestly disagreeing as to the cause, or are you just trying to play "let's argue?"

Oh, and that last part you posted is a huge strawman. I never claimed Bush was unresponsible [sic] for the crisis. In fact, I specifically mentioned that Bush was not blameless--in my previous post, in fact!

Posted just recently by SDW2001, and ignored by jimmac:



The Bush Administration was just as interested in touting home ownership as was the Clinton Administration. The Bush Administration supported the same no doc and low income loans as did te Clinton Administration. The difference is that the Bush Admin did warn on the balance sheets of Fannie and Freddie once they saw a potential problem with exposure to these loans, as did Senator McCain. These warnings were ignored by Obama's party (though he was not POTUS). These are facts that are undeniable--not my opinion.

The issue with you jimmac is that everything is seen through a partisan lens. Republicans=bad and Democrats=better. You justify these opinions with vagueness and platitudes, then attack those that actually wish to understand/explain the roots of a particular issue. Worse still, you shift to and fro with these platitudes when it suits you. And example is the Iraq War vs. The Economy. In 2003 to present, you said Bush was either "lying or incompetent" on WMD because the buck stopped with him. But that same meme doesn't apply to Obama re: the economy. Now we have "well it was really Bush's fault" and "he's just trying to clean up Bush's mess" and other such nonsense. You also are attacking the GOP and political opponents of Obama, clamoring about why things haven't improved since the Republicans "took over." Intellectual dishonesty, meaningless rhetoric and shifting standards. That's your MO.

How about simply an unbiased source that draws the same conclusions as you ( sorry but this means you can't just lift it from the GOP's game page )?

Plenty of people out there think Bush was the one who started this simply byu being the best position to stop it before it started.

They aren't as willing to let him off the hook like yourself. Oh! And about myself asking why things haven't improved since the GOP won back those seats is perfectly valid. You guys were making such a big deal about it I thought it might be the second coming or something. After all I gave them as much time as you gave Obama. And since congress were soooooo powerful ( in democratic form ) during the Bush administration to cause so much trouble during the last two years they should have a positive effect on the economy in this administration ( republican form ) by now right?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #185 of 226
Well folks plenty of agitated conservative types however no one agreeing with SDW on his take of how this all started ( except of course those same conservatives ) .
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #186 of 226
I will jimmac's reasoning.

As soon as he actually uses some.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #187 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I will jimmac's reasoning.

As soon as he actually uses some.

You will?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #188 of 226
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Some how given all the things he did I'm a little Underwhelmed. However I am impressed that you said something. I must have missed those.

They aren't the only posts at all of that nature by me. It's just hard to find them because the forum is screwed up in how it has been rearranged over the years. The search function seems to be profoundly broken so older searches are hard to do. That thread somehow ended up under general discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How about SDW's links to data? And why don't we ask the forum at large? Who here thinks SDW's take is an accurate one? I'll bet I can name the names of the persons who do.

Since must of the time we are speculating in here, only history can tell who is most accurate and to what degree. I seldom agree with anyone on here 100% so at best we could probably assign percentages. You also attempt to turn this into a popularity contest. By default your thinking is of who said what when, who agrees, etc. That isn't logical thinking. It is intent and popularity thinking and is probably left over from when liberals outnumber conservatives in this little exchange by about five to one. You could also say accurate for how long. As an example in that thread from 2003, Tonton declared that housing prices in California were in a bubble due there being loads of $200k houses. I said he was wrong. If you asked us that in 2007 then clearly housing was in a bubble at that point and I can find posts noting that if I so choose. Now in 2011 those prices have fallen and $200k houses are still here but cheaper in inflation adjusted dollars so that is now their largely deflated price. Who's right or wrong when looking at information from 8 years ago? Broad trends sure, but particulars and out of context stuff would be easy to harp on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well guys I guess no one here ( except for his conservative friends ) believes SDW's take on how this economic crisis started. Just as I suspected.

And I think I've made it clear ( dispite what NoahJ one of the conservatives says ) why I think the Bush administration is responsible. And if you don't know " why? " I guess you have selective memeory loss or you haven't been paying attention to what I've said.

Or simple obfuscation ( talk about " game playing " )..

Ps. Honestly for all the times I'm asked to repeat myself for some of the conservative lot here you'd think they all have Alzheimer’s.

You repeat your bad reasoning often in hopes someone will buy into it but no one cares to buy into bad reasoning. The Bush administration isn't responsible completely for any problem we currently have now. It is part of a process. I've clearly declared that the process is generational and above party which SHOULD if anything prove I'm less of a partisan than you claim. The boomer generations worldview and theories they endorse related to it cause solutions that amount to variations on a theme. Bush was not very conservative. He was more like Democrat Lite which I said then and now because it was true. Neo-con is old liberal. Liberals have always believe in nation building just like they believe in society building. They are two birds of a feather.

The Republican-lites, RINOS, Neo-Cons, whatever you care to call them are like those Democrats who declare the war isn't wrong, but it just needs better management. Those Republicans believe government just needs better management of entitlements and a few tweaks around the edges. They are wrong in that belief because they fail to see that once "society" assumes responsibility for something that should be personal, the problems multiply. Given women money for having children out of wedlock and soon it is almost the societal norm that babies are made this way. Give people Social Security and watch retirement savings evaporate. Give them free health care and you won't just see obesity rates continue to inch up, but many other problems will multiply as well. People must care for themselves. The government CANNOT live their lives for them.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #189 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

They aren't the only posts at all of that nature by me. It's just hard to find them because the forum is screwed up in how it has been rearranged over the years. The search function seems to be profoundly broken so older searches are hard to do. That thread somehow ended up under general discussion.



Since must of the time we are speculating in here, only history can tell who is most accurate and to what degree. I seldom agree with anyone on here 100% so at best we could probably assign percentages. You also attempt to turn this into a popularity contest. By default your thinking is of who said what when, who agrees, etc. That isn't logical thinking. It is intent and popularity thinking and is probably left over from when liberals outnumber conservatives in this little exchange by about five to one.



You repeat your bad reasoning often in hopes someone will buy into it but no one cares to buy into bad reasoning. The Bush administration isn't responsible completely for any problem we currently have now. It is part of a process. I've clearly declared that the process is generational and above party which SHOULD if anything prove I'm less of a partisan than you claim. The boomer generations worldview and theories they endorse related to it cause solutions that amount to variations on a theme. Bush was not very conservative. He was more like Democrat Lite which I said then and now because it was true. Neo-con is old liberal. Liberals have always believe in nation building just like they believe in society building. They are two birds of a feather.

The Republican-lites, RINOS, Neo-Cons, whatever you care to call them are like those Democrats who declare the war isn't wrong, but it just needs better management. Those Republicans believe government just needs better management of entitlements and a few tweaks around the edges. They are wrong in that belief because they fail to see that once "society" assumes responsibility for something that should be personal, the problems multiply. Given women money for having children out of wedlock and soon it is almost the societal norm that babies are made this way. Give people Social Security and watch retirement savings evaporate. Give them free health care and you won't just see obesity rates continue to inch up, but many other problems will multiply as well. People must care for themselves. The government CANNOT live their lives for them.

Still nothing but conservative opinion here folks ( and a little rambling ).

No unbiased source or someone other than the " trumptman for lunch bunch " agreeing with SDW on his take on how this economic crisis started.

Oh well.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #190 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Still nothing but conservative opinion here folks ( and a little rambling ).

No unbiased source or someone other than the " trumptman for lunch bunch " agreeing with SDW on his take on how this economic crisis started.

Oh well.

They say repetition is good for a developing mind. But whats your excuse?

Also, agreement being stated does not a stronger position make in this instance. I agree that there should be links to data and quotes. SDW has done more of this in this thread than any other participant. Whether you agree with his sources or not, you have yet to provide anything but personal bias. And I have not taken a side here, just noted your hypocrisy is running rampant. As per normal it seems.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #191 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

They say repetition is good for a developing mind. But whats your excuse?

Also, agreement being stated does not a stronger position make in this instance. I agree that there should be links to data and quotes. SDW has done more of this in this thread than any other participant. Whether you agree with his sources or not, you have yet to provide anything but personal bias. And I have not taken a side here, just noted your hypocrisy is running rampant. As per normal it seems.

Quote:
They say repetition is good for a developing mind. But whats your excuse?

Because you keep reposting the same basic answer repackaged and nothings changed. There's still nothing to hold his argument but his personal take. However if Bush wasn't responsible for anything that went on during his tenure in office ( certainly this was something pretty basic ) what the hell did he do as president? And why do you hold Obama so responsible but not him ( yes I know he's only a little bit to blame while Obama takes the rap )? I mean if it's really all Clinton's fault ( ). I'm not the only one asking this question because this has no logic to it at all. Further more it shows the lack of logic in the republicans whole approach to this problem. They don't really care about solving anything. They just want to win.

Quote:
Also, agreement being stated does not a stronger position make in this instance.

Sure!

Quote:
Whether you agree with his sources or not

What sources were those?

Quote:
you have yet to provide anything but personal bias

I see. A president is only responsible for what goes on during his administration if he's a Democrat.

Quote:
And I have not taken a side here,

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #192 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How about simply an unbiased source that draws the same conclusions as you ( sorry but this means you can't just lift it from the GOP's game page )?

Which conclusions are those?

Quote:

Plenty of people out there think Bush was the one who started this simply byu being the best position to stop it before it started.

If those people exist, they believe in fairy tales, and are intellectually lazy, stupid and wrong.

Quote:

They aren't as willing to let him off the hook like yourself.

I have now posted two consecutive times indicating the Bush Administration's culpability. Are you serious?

Quote:
Oh! And about myself asking why things haven't improved since the GOP won back those seats is perfectly valid.

No, it's not. They control 1/2 of 1/3 of the government. Math is fun.

Quote:
You guys were making such a big deal about it I thought it might be the second coming or something.

1. Define "you guys"
2. Prove it.
3. Who cares?

Quote:


After all I gave them as much time as you gave Obama. And since congress were soooooo powerful ( in democratic form ) during the Bush administration to cause so much trouble during the last two years they should have a positive effect on the economy in this administration ( republican form ) by now right?

This might actually be the dumbest thing you've ever posted. Th GOP does not control Congress, jimmac. They control the House of Representatives. From 2007 through 2010, the Democrats controlled both houses. Again, would you like a link to something explaining our bicameral legislative system?

Oh, and since I'm sick of your bitching:

The Deep Roots of the Financial Crisis

from wikipedia:

Quote:
According to the New York Times, some of these housing advocacy groups provided early warnings about the potential impact of lowered credit standards and the resulting unsupportable increase in real estate values they were causing in low to moderate income communities. Ballooning mortgages on rental properties threatened to require large rent increases from low and moderate income tenants that could ill afford them.[99]
Housing advocacy groups were also leaders in the fight against subprime lending in low- and moderate-income communities, "In fact, community advocates had been telling the Federal Reserve about the dangers of subprime lending since the 1990s", according to Inner City Press.

Quote:
Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[98] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."[105] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.[106]
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #193 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Because you keep reposting the same basic answer repackaged and nothings changed. There's still nothing to hold his argument but his personal take. However if Bush wasn't responsible for anything that went on during his tenure in office ( certainly this was something pretty basic ) what the hell did he do as president? And why do you hold Obama so responsible but not him ( yes I know he's only a little bit to blame while Obama takes the rap )? I mean if it's really all Clinton's fault ( ). I'm not the only one asking this question because this has no logic to it at all. Further more it shows the lack of logic in the republicans whole approach to this problem. They don't really care about solving anything. They just want to win.



Sure!



What sources were those?



I see. A president is only responsible for what goes on during his administration if he's a Democrat.




jimmac, I'm trying to get this here...do you DISAGREE with my assessment? Do you feel the crisis started some other way? If you believe Bush is primarily responsible, provide some links supporting your assertion. This is not a black and white issue...there is blame to go around everyone...Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, banks, borrowers, etc. Yet you seem like you are hell bent on pinning this on Bush.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #194 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

jimmac, I'm trying to get this here...do you DISAGREE with my assessment? Do you feel the crisis started some other way? If you believe Bush is primarily responsible, provide some links supporting your assertion. This is not a black and white issue...there is blame to go around everyone...Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, banks, borrowers, etc. Yet you seem like you are hell bent on pinning this on Bush.

Ahhhhh! the lack of reading comprehension. Allow me to restate what I've already said to you :

Quote:
Yes, yes, it's all the Democrats fault. And Clinton figures prominantly. Uh huh.

Well I disagree.

That's what I mean by having to repeat myself with the conservative element here.

Quote:
If you believe Bush is primarily responsible, provide some links supporting your assertion.

He was president when the crisis became a problem. He had been president for 8 long years at that point. He had the best chance to do something about it while it brewing ( and it's not like many of us while not referencing this problem directly did ask what the hell is Bush doing as far as his approach to the economy? Doesn't he care about our children and grand children? ) but didn't. And now you seem to be saying he was powerless and yet Obama is all powerful and should just fix it ( in 3 years ). Does anyone see a problem with this logic?

I certainly do.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #195 of 226
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

jimmac, I'm trying to get this here...do you DISAGREE with my assessment? Do you feel the crisis started some other way? If you believe Bush is primarily responsible, provide some links supporting your assertion. This is not a black and white issue...there is blame to go around everyone...Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, banks, borrowers, etc. Yet you seem like you are hell bent on pinning this on Bush.

Apparently the Democratic plan for 2012 is to scare the country into electing someone to get George W. Bush out of office.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #196 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Apparently the Democratic plan for 2012 is to scare the country into electing someone to get George W. Bush out of office.

The country should be scared. What we don't need is another " Let it run on it's own " republican. That was part of the problem before. Banks treating leading like " anything goes ". I believe the " Wild west " was someone's discription of the problem.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archi...00bradley.html

Quote:
have qualified for conventional "A" or "A-" quality loans.

Mortgage Brokers: The Wild, Wild West of Capitalism

Mortgage brokers originate over 50% of subprime loans. Some make money in the same way that prime-rate brokers do: they charge the customer a fee for finding a loan. Most make their money from what is known as a "yield-spread premium," a kick-back from the lender in exchange for placing the borrower into a higher-interest loan than what she would normally qualify for. The higher the fees and interest rates a mortgage broker packs into a loan, the greater their compensation.

Predatory lenders often aggressively market to moderate-income and minority communities, through mail, phone, TV, and even door-to-door sales. Their advertisements promise lower monthly payments as a way out of debt. What they don't tell potential borrowers is that they will be paying more and longer. Worse yet, they will be entering a system that promotes a cycle of debt that has been compared to sharecropping, an economic system that is unequal and unfair.

Mortgage brokers often claim they have no responsibility to find borrowers a good loan. They operate on the unregulated fringes of the financial world, in an environment that has been called "the wild, wild west of capitalism." In many states, brokers need only register with the state without taking a licensing exam or any proof of training. Cosmetologists have higher licensing standards than do mortgage brokers in North Carolina. A mortgage broker that violates lending laws can simply close shop and open under a different name.

The mortgage broker who took advantage of Green's trust in him — and her fear that she wouldn't be able to get a loan from a bank — got a $3,500 fee from the mortgage company, which was taken out of Green's home equity. Green received a loan charging 10% interest, packed with inflated fees, including a loan origination fee of $7,500, 10% of the cost of the loan. Over 30 years, Green will pay $40,000 more in interest than she would have if she had gotten a loan at 8%.

Here's another reference : http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/109/bradley.html

And another :

http://www.moolanomy.com/866/what-ca...risis-of-2008/

Quote:
I think we can sum up the cause of our current economic crisis in one word — GREED. Over the years, mortgage lenders were happy to lend money to people who couldn’t afford their mortgages. But they did it anyway because there was nothing to lose. These lenders were able to charge higher interest rates and make more money on sub-prime loans. If the borrowers default, they simply seized the house and put it back on the market. On top of that, they were able to pass the risk off to mortgage insurer or package these mortgages as mortgage-backed securities. Easy money!

http://cashmoneylife.com/economic-fi...s-2008-causes/

Quote:
How did it get so bad?

Greed. The American economy is built on credit. Credit is a great tool when used wisely. For instance, credit can be used to start or expand a business, which can create jobs. It can also be used to purchase large ticket items such as houses or cars. Again, more jobs are created and people’s needs are satisfied. But in the last decade, credit went unchecked in our country, and it got out of control.

Mortgage brokers, acting only as middle men, determined who got loans, then passed on the responsibility for those loans on to others in the form of mortgage backed assets (after taking a fee for themselves originating the loan). Exotic and risky mortgages became commonplace and the brokers who approved these loans absolved themselves of responsibility by packaging these bad mortgages with other mortgages and reselling them as “investments.”

Thousands of people took out loans larger than they could afford in the hopes that they could either flip the house for profit or refinance later at a lower rate and with more equity in their home – which they would then leverage to purchase another “investment” house.

A lot of people got rich quickly and people wanted more. Before long, all you needed to buy a house was a pulse and your word that you could afford the mortgage. Brokers had no reason not to sell you a home. They made a cut on the sale, then packaged the mortgage with a group of other mortgages and erased all personal responsibility of the loan. But many of these mortgage backed assets were ticking time bombs. And they just went off.

And the conservatives attitude today : Well if they didn't have enough sense they shouldn't have taken the loan.

Bush had plenty of time ( the biggest block while the crisis was coming to a head ) to put some regulation on this stuff but didn't. And yes I know you guys aren't big on government intervention but see what happens when they don't?

I'm sure MJ1970 or trumptman will have a bit of sophistry to make this kind of thinking all ok.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #197 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The country should be scared. What we don't need is another " Let it run on it's own " republican. That was part of the problem before. Banks treating leading like " anything goes ". I believe the " Wild west " was someone's discription of the problem.

Ahhh the old it was rampant, wild and unfettered freedom that cause the problems meme.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Bush had plenty of time...

According to you the world began in the year 2000.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And yes I know you guys aren't big on government intervention but see what happens when they don't?

Again, you fail to get it. There's has been plenty of government intervention that led to this new depression. You'r fixation on all things Bush blinds you to the variety of factors (including Bush-isms) that led to this. Open your eyes. This beyond one party or one man. There are systematic issues here. There's also a mindset (collectivist/statist/socialist/marxist) that's an issue here.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #198 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Because you keep reposting the same basic answer repackaged and nothings changed. There's still nothing to hold his argument but his personal take. However if Bush wasn't responsible for anything that went on during his tenure in office ( certainly this was something pretty basic ) what the hell did he do as president? And why do you hold Obama so responsible but not him ( yes I know he's only a little bit to blame while Obama takes the rap )? I mean if it's really all Clinton's fault ( ). I'm not the only one asking this question because this has no logic to it at all. Further more it shows the lack of logic in the republicans whole approach to this problem. They don't really care about solving anything. They just want to win.

I do?

Quote:
Sure!

Apparantly you disagree with yourself here? As you have been stating that just because a bunch of conservatives on the board all agree does not make their position correct. And now you say that because other have NOT said anything that your position is stronger... Which is it sir?

Quote:
What sources were those?

I am not your research mule.

Quote:
I see. A president is only responsible for what goes on during his administration if he's a Democrat.


Strawman.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #199 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Ahhhhh! the lack of reading comprehension. Allow me to restate what I've already said to you :



That's what I mean by having to repeat myself with the conservative element here.

That's not "restating what you've said." That's reposting your strawman argument. You literally put words in my mouth, then tried shoot those words down. That is a textbook strawman.

Quote:

He was president when the crisis became a problem.

Obama has been President during this crisis. By your logic he should get all the blame.

Quote:
He had been president for 8 long years at that point. He had the best chance to do something about it while it brewing

Didn't I just explain that the Bush Admin DID try and do something?

Quote:

( and it's not like many of us while not referencing this problem directly did ask what the hell is Bush doing as far as his approach to the economy? Doesn't he care about our children and grand children? ) but didn't.

You mean to tell me YOU saw the crisis coming and were screaming about the mortgage crisis before it happened? Liar, liar, pants on fire. Oh, and the above quote about "his approach to the economy" and "not caring about our children" is a perfect example of the meaningless platitudes you spew forth. What, exactly, was "his approach" to the economy? And if Bush didn't "care about our children and grand children" then Obama cares about them 4x less, because his deficits are 4x higher!

Quote:

And now you seem to be saying he was powerless and yet Obama is all powerful and should just fix it ( in 3 years ). Does anyone see a problem with this logic?

I certainly do.

I see a problem with yet another strawman. Man, you're really a hoot today. Bush was responsible for the financial crisis because it started when he was the president. But Obama is responsible for none of his own actions, such as the failed stimulus, starting a third war, increasing deficit spending 4x over, hanging Israel out to dry, failing to see Egypt's uprising coming, failing to address high unemployment, and failing to promote domestic energy independence. Gotcha. Tell me, jimmac, when will Obama be responsible for his own actions?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #200 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The country should be scared. What we don't need is another " Let it run on it's own " republican. That was part of the problem before. Banks treating leading like " anything goes ". I believe the " Wild west " was someone's discription of the problem.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archi...00bradley.html



Here's another reference : http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/109/bradley.html

And another :

http://www.moolanomy.com/866/what-ca...risis-of-2008/



http://cashmoneylife.com/economic-fi...s-2008-causes/



And the conservatives attitude today : Well if they didn't have enough sense they shouldn't have taken the loan.

That's absolutely the attitude most people should have. And if you're honestly trying to say that predatory lending led to the crisis, then you're more off-base than I thought. Actually, the victim mentality is right in line with most Democrats.

Quote:

Bush had plenty of time ( the biggest block while the crisis was coming to a head ) to put some regulation on this stuff but didn't. And yes I know you guys aren't big on government intervention but see what happens when they don't?

I'm sure MJ1970 or trumptman will have a bit of sophistry to make this kind of thinking all ok.


What "stuff?" Predatory lending did not cause the crisis. Greed may have, but unless there is a way to outlaw greed, regulation wouldn't have solved much.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › People who believe in fairy tales and predictions from them are stupid!