It's true that both parties are responsible for deficits. And both voted in favor of invasion and funding of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it was mostly the Democratic Party support for affirmative action mortgage lending that caused the housing crisis of 2008 and subsequently the economic downturn.
all they'd have to do is get rid of Bush's massive giveaway to the wealthy and we'd be well on our way to financial stability... as well as ending the wars and use some of that cash to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and develop the infrastructure for sustainable, renewable, GREEN energy... doing those things you'd have a built-in "jobs" program as well....
Look at the chart: TARP, Fannie and Freddie compose a tiny fraction of the deficit. The argument that these caused the economic downturn doesn't hold up.
The economic downturn had a number of causes, most of them related to a flood of capital coming in from China a very low interest rates contributing to a bubble market, a deal driven mortgage industry desperate to roll over customers, banks gladly repackaging mortgages into CDOs and washing their hands of them, ratings agencies looking askance when evaluating these synthetic debt obligations, and investment banks marketing them to pension and sovereign wealth funds knowing that they'd likely default then betting against them with credit default swaps.
The outcome was a collapse in credit markets worldwide and continuing volatility.
Give it up, Olly. Your credibility is negative. Your regurgitation on economic points is costing you, just like your parroting of the East Anglia fraud.
O&A I usually ignore your troll prattling, using it for humor and for others to nibble on your worthless carcass, but today, from me, please – STFU!
Stop peddling that “both parties are responsible” bullshit. It’s not true; the deficits and resulting massive debt is clearly pointed at one party, with the debt owned by three presidents; one named Reagan, the others named Bush.
Although voting with the Repukes for the wars, it was the Democrats that thought maybe, maybe, we ought to hold off on that tax cut, and maybe, we ought to look - like we did every time this nation went to war - at a tax increase. The knee-jerk reaction from the Repugs was to scream “Tax and Spend”, “Tax and Spend”, and vilify fiscal responsibility to the point a tax increase is politically suicide. “Tax and Spend” may be an effective sound bite but “Tax and Spend” does one thing very well – it pays the damn bills! “Tax and Spend” is good economic policy. Ask “Bush the Smarter”.
The Rethuglicans blocked the attempt to put off the tax cut and any tax increase; and then raised the ante with a second round of tax cuts.
As for the Community Reinvestment Act, Federal Reserve Governor Randall S. Kroszner says you, and the Republican ball-gargling yam-bags blaming this on the CRA, are wrong. Again. And constantly.
CRA-covered banks made only 15% of the higher-priced first mortgage loans. Private mortgage companies and large bank affiliates made up the other 85%, none of them covered by CRA rules. Along with Kroszner, Janet Yellen, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, stated in a March 2008 said, "studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." The problem was never the CRA, it was what was done with the loans after they were packaged, sold, and used to make leveraged plays.
And the innumeracy of the right shows itself again...
As the chart demonstrates, Bush's cutting taxes for the wealthy is the largest and fastest-growing cause of the deficit. So the bailouts have much less to do with the deficit than the tax cuts.
So-called "deficit hawks" will point at things like the National Endowment for the Arts ($0.155 billion in 2009) and TARP ($151 billion in 2009), but they are combined less than one fifth of defense spending ($782 billion in 2009), and most of the war funding is outside of that through "Emergency Supplementals" and "Emergency Budget Amendments."
Drowning government in a bathtub -- it's hard work. But to scream "help, I'm being drowned by the government" as you're doing it, that takes chutzpah!
Time for free speech like the drivel and lies of such troll deserves no pulpit. Yet they steal the pulpit from those who voted for hope and change. Because the money trickles from their fat overgorged and corrupt pockets. vox
Not to mention the fact that Freddie and Fannie where taken out of the securitization game by congress when the bulk of the bad loans were going through (2003 to 2006 saw a decrease in the amount of loans secured by Fannie/Freddie:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/gseshare.png
Percentage of private sub-prime loans increased dramatically at this time:
I fully realize that Freddie and Fannie didn't issue all of the affirmative action mortgages -- and also that these loans by themselves weren't enough to spark the housing crisis. However, I also understand that most of these mortgages were highly irreponsible and that subsequently there were many players preying upon selling the bad debts in circular fashion until there were no more takers. The lowered mortgage eligibily rules applied also caused others to overextend their debt ratio, those were mostly middle income people looking to flip houses for a quick profit. All and all a recipe for economic downfall once the conbination of bad debts started the downward cycle.
I also realize that leftists have an emotional need to protect victim politics (affirmative action) and yet another need to blame the Republicans for everything under the sun. Hence the silly, childish name calling such as Rethuglicans, Repugs and Repukes etc etc like Hedley uses at the 12:41 comment above
......later on I'll post a short video that explains how the housing crisis happened. Even dummies like Dan can understand these things if walked through it slowly......
Seen your video before. Not surprisingly, you are cherry picking facts to support an extremely biased subset of the entire situation.
There is one thing we can be sure of: when presented with a blizzard of facts to the contrary, OnA can be counted on to double down on his ideological stakes.
As stated previously: your credibility is in the negative OnA. You really ought to give it up: your rambling regurgitation of Beck, Limbaugh, et al simply proves what a rube you are. Digging a deeper hole for yourself is "irreponsible" further damaging your "eligibily" to be truly heard or appreciated.
The complete lack of class and childish name calling at 12:41 gave an appearance that it was probably your garbage, Hedley. And you've often been posting as "anonymous" ever since your Doctor allowed you back on blogging.
Umm. It's very noticeable that you didn't attempt to refute anything in the video.
Unlikely. You're obsessing on a small subset to the exclusion of a wide reality: confirmation bias.
Funny how OnA condescends other more educated posters here. We've got several PhDs, JDs and Masters yet OnA continues to ride in on his little hobby horses.
Hedley. Why do you continue to embarrass yourself with this (and other ways) of attempting to distract from your transparent failure in refuting a given argument?
And.... whomever it was claiming PhD status made it very obvious that they were lying. IIRC it was somebody with the nic Dr something or other ? He claimed to "have his PhD" rather than claiming the status in the manner with which somebody with a high level of education would phrase it. ie "I'm a PhD"
What's your argument? All I see is a link to a YouTube video.
I recall last year you posted the same video. It does a pretty good job of explaining the chain reaction that lead to the credit market collapse. What it does ~not~ do is support your point that the CRA loans are the sole cause of the crisis.
Strongly suggest that you re-read @12:41 and DanF @1:11
"He claimed to "have his PhD" rather than claiming the status in the manner with which somebody with a high level of education would phrase it. ie "I'm a PhD"
Yes, that sure is proof positive that he was lying.
There is nothing in there about 'affirmative action' loans. The incentives to lower qualifications for sub-prime mortgage buyers were market driven and as DanF states they were almost entirely private loans.
I correct myself on one point: you appear to revise your position on 'affirmative action' loans as the cause of the credit crisis from your first statement
"But it was mostly the Democratic Party support for affirmative action mortgage lending that caused the housing crisis of 2008 and subsequently the economic downturn."
to your later statement
"I fully realize that Freddie and Fannie didn't issue all of the affirmative action mortgages -- and also that these loans by themselves weren't enough to spark the housing crisis. "
so it's difficult to understand where exactly you are on this point. In general, seems like you've taken the bait on assigning blame for the greed of a hypermarket collapse on Democrats and low income housing. Talking points.
What it does ~not~ do is support your point that the CRA loans are the sole cause of the crisis.
Clearly, I didn't say that the loans were the sole cause. And in your subsequent comment (at 3:15) you seem to have come to a slow, agonizing (almost an hour) realization that I didn't state anything close to that.
Are you sure your medication isn't off kilter? Just a little? Inside of an hour you radically changed what you thought that I had written!! Perhaps your medication regimen has nothing to do with it and it's just a tad of reading comprehension problem.
The incentives to lower qualifications for sub-prime mortgage buyers were market driven and as DanF states they were almost entirely private loans.
That's not true, Hedley. Various leftist groups (ACORN, Barack Obama and other company included) through threatened massive class action and the Clinton administration through legislation forced Fannie, Freddie (and other lenders) to lower mortgage qualifications.
The Clinton administration acknowledged that the lowered qualifications were "affirmative action" and were being forced upon the lending institutions.
Now ... Hedley (and Dan).....
Pay very close attention to the following video. Especially at about 2:40 when Cuomo even says it: " they would not have qualified if not for the affirmative action on the part of the banks...yes"
"affirmative action"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
You're such a knob, Hedley. And can I now expect you to repeat your nastiness of wishing illness and death upon me, especially now that I've provided irrefutable proof of "affirmative action' mortgage lending?
heh/ ....just watched the balance of the video I linked to above. That's the first time that I've heard the affirmative action loans referred to as " NINJA loans" no income, no job or assets.....
But you did at the top of this thread: "affirmative action mortgage lending that caused the housing crisis of 2008 and subsequently the economic downturn." We've heard this point from you many times.
I think you're confusing 'sub-prime' and 'affirmative action'.
The spin on this from Fox and Rush Limbaugh (notably prominent at the top of 'related videos') is veiled racism. Much of the CRA and ACORN work has been to address redlining and discrimination.
The video is propaganda: it proves nothing. The comments by the Fed Governors cited above refute your argument.
Really? The first time you've heard of NINJA loans?
I suggest you learn more about NINJA loans. They started as a product of speculative mortgage loan originators in the private market: another factor in the market bubble in an unregulated free market. NINJA loans had nothing to do with 'affirmative action' or CRA, rather they were sub-prime loans products developed to satisfy the appetites of deal hungry financial players.
OnA, I've studied, debated and written post-grad papers on the economic crisis and its root causes. I've spent a few hundred hours with former Fed economists and bankers discussing these issues. Nowhere in these discussions has it been suggested that ACORN or the CRA were a factor in the CDO/CDS financial bubble and economic collapse. The very idea is a propaganda ploy to manufacture controversy and hump the ratings. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Frank Luntz was behind this.
OnA, I've studied, debated and written post-grad papers on the economic crisis and its root causes.
Hedley what a pathetic bullshitter you are!
The only thing you've studied closely is your own navel -- and possibly your own tiny penile unit. And debating?/ well forget that! I wonder if you wished misfortune on others that pulverized the arguments of an idealogue such as yourself?
Once again you've chosen obfuscation over confronting or arguing the evidence I've shown, as here above in the linked Clinton administration video.
I can understand why you'd want to completely avoid that video since Cuomo himself refers to the bulk of the bad loans as "affirmative action". And in the same lil video Obama has also subsequently admitted to the affirmative action loans concept as having been faulty. Don't suppose you bothered with watching that far into the video? (if you in fact watched any of it whatsoever).
No, OnA. I'm being 100% truthful with you. I passed a 12 credit 500 level macroeconomics class with a 3.6. My professor and her husband were both Fed economists and wrote the book. We talked about NINJA loans weekly for over 9 months during the darkest months of the credit crisis.
I'm surprised that someone claiming your depth of knowledge in these areas has just recently learned about NINJA loans.
I did watch the video, and what I found was a bunch of clips slammed together with a highly biased 3rd party narrative that conflates the CRA and Federal laws (intended to eliminate redlining and discriminatory lending practices) with a wingnut theory that none of those people's statements support.
Sorry, your 'argument' doesn't withstand scrutiny. You might want to try changing the channel. Those Fox guys got your goat.
Sorry, your 'argument' doesn't withstand scrutiny. You might want to try changing the channel. Those Fox guys got your goat.
No need to apologize, Hedley. It's not as if your above comment wishes misfortune upon me, or anything nasty like that.
Not sure what you think Fox has to do with Cuomo's statement, other than they may have broadcast the presser. And speaking of that press conference, I'm pretty sure it's Andrew Cuomo, Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development that has his lips moving. And the words he clearly speaks (at about 2:40) are as follows:
" they would not have qualified if not for the affirmative action on the part of the banks...yes"
"affirmative action"
Now, Hedley. I know you might find this more than a little confusing but the words aren't actually spoken by some dark, evil Fox figure that you might have imagined in your feverish, leftist, backward thinking and revisionist mind. These words came directly from the mouth of Andrew Cuomo. Clinton's administration. Not Rush Limbaugh, not Ann Coulter, not a member of an evil Fox cabal that you've conjured and not even the ghost of Ronald Reagan.
Nosirree.....it was....
Andrew Cuomo.
A quick word of advice for you, Hedley. If you did indeed study economics you should consider augmenting that with some kind of a basic comprehension course.
lesson one: Andrew Cuomo "they would not have qualified if not for the affirmative action on the part of the banks...yes"
What Andrew Cuomo said was taken out of context by the editors. He was talking about the effect of the CRA on borrowers who might have been redlined or suffered other forms of discrimination in lending.
Furthermore, there is no proof that any those loans are 'sub-prime' and the comments cited by DanF and Anon@ 12:40 show that the composition mortgage defaults is heavily weighted toward commercial sub-prime loans that have nothing to do with CRA or 'affirmative action' lending.
What's happening here is a conflation of 'sub-prime' and CRA 'affirmative action' loans and it is specious, offensive and veiled racism. Lies intended to smear Democrats and deflect responsibility for the economic failures of the last 10 years.
Regarding basic comprehension: don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. Unfortunately, your facts are a product of wingnut propaganda mills. Your resistance to see beyond that is telling.
I suggest you go back and look carefully at the 'credit crisis' video you posted. Listen carefully. How many times is 'affirmative action' mentioned? How many times is 'sub-prime' mentioned?
"The affirmative action lending meant that the banks had to lower the qualifications for everyone, not just exclusive to people that benefitted from affirmative action."
No, CRA did not force banks to make high-risk loans. The banks made high-risk sub-prime loans by their own choice.
"The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods. The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business...
"The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution."
"Some economists, politicians and other commentators have charged that the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis by encouraging banks to make unsafe loans. Economists from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, dispute this contention. The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis."
Go back and look at your credit crisis video again. What factors are compelling the banks to make risky loans? There is no mention of government mandate or 'affirmative action': it's all unregulated free-market risk/reward. Frank Luntz and Company have persuaded you that the sub-prime loans that were created between 2003 and 2008 are the same as the CRA loans. But they're not. The failure rate of these loans has a very low correlation to the default rate in the market in general.
Perhaps things are different in Canada, but here it wasn't so long ago when people were refused loans because solely they were the wrong color or had the wrong address. The CRA was created to address these injustices. Your identification of these policies as 'racism' is telling.
Everybody else reading this thread -- including DanF -- have long since realized that Cuomo actually says that the risky loaning practises are "affirmative action". If they thought there were any holes whatsoever in what I've asserted here they would be gleefully cartwheeling while pointing to any deficiencies or falsehoods.
Andrew Cuomo said precisely what I quoted him as saying (at 2:40) and then follows that up by admitting that the result of the riskier loans will by a higher default rate. This is a fact, Hedley, and it simply doesn't matter how spooky the evil righies at Fox appear to you. At this point Dan and co are sitting back in silence and cringing at the stubborn state of denial you've displayed here. And they're probably laughing at your posing as a person with formal education in economics. I'm not sure why you continue to deny/ignore what Cuomo actually says on the video ("affirmative action") Perhaps you think that by continually repeating your lies that it will eventually come to be accepted fact? I think it was Goebbels that said something about that.... repeating a lie often enough.......
Your identification of these policies as 'racism' is telling.
It's obvious to all except some very stupid people (or ideologues) that favoring one person over another because of race is racism. The dictionary shows that I'm correct in the characterization of affirmative action based on race as being rasism.
here:
rac·ism /ĖreÉŖsÉŖzÉm/ [rey-siz-uhm] –noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races
dis·crim·i·na·tion /dÉŖĖskrÉŖmÉĖneÉŖŹÉn/ [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] –noun 1. an act or instance of discriminating. 2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. 3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination. 4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.
Everybody else reading this thread -- including DanF -- have long since realized that Cuomo actually says that the risky loaning practises are "affirmative action". If they thought there were any holes whatsoever in what I've asserted here they would be gleefully cartwheeling while pointing to any deficiencies or falsehoods.
Andrew Cuomo said precisely what I quoted him as saying (at 2:40) and then follows that up by admitting that the result of the riskier loans will by a higher default rate. This is a fact, Hedley, and it simply doesn't matter how spooky the evil righies at Fox appear to you. At this point Dan and co are sitting back in silence and cringing at the stubborn state of denial you've displayed here. And they're probably laughing at your posing as a person with formal education in economics. I'm not sure why you continue to deny/ignore what Cuomo actually says on the video ("affirmative action") Perhaps you think that by continually repeating your lies that it will eventually come to be accepted fact? I think it was Goebbels that said something about that.... repeating a lie often enough.......
Your identification of these policies as 'racism' is telling.
It's obvious to all except some very stupid people (or ideologues) that favoring one person over another because of race is racism. The dictionary shows that I'm correct in the characterization of affirmative action based on race as being rasism.
here:
rac·ism /ĖreÉŖsÉŖzÉm/ [rey-siz-uhm] –noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races
dis·crim·i·na·tion /dÉŖĖskrÉŖmÉĖneÉŖŹÉn/ [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] –noun 1. an act or instance of discriminating. 2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. 3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination. 4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.
"Everybody else reading this thread -- including DanF..."
Where does DanF comment on your Fox mashup video? How do you know anyone else is still reading this thread?
"And they're probably laughing at your posing as a person with formal education in economics..."
Judging from your very recent (yesterday) discovery of NINJA loans, I question whether you have a strong enough basis in economics to know whether or not I'm not posing. I stand by my statements, my academic work and confirmation by the school I graduated from: a Top 30 university.
"Andrew Cuomo said precisely what I quoted him as saying (at 2:40) and then follows that up by admitting that the result of the riskier loans will by a higher default rate. This is a fact, Hedley..."
It is a fact that two separate statements were made by Cuomo on video, but the meaning of those statements is framed and biased by the editor. The clips were taken out of context and cut together to create the -illusion- that Cuomo said one thing or another in support of a theory that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.
Lastly, there is -no- evidence that CRA supported mortgages (what you and the right call 'affirmative action' mortgages) are the same sub-prime mortgages that created the mortgage credit crisis of 2007 to the present. The Fed has looked at this and issued statements which I cited. Other commenters in this thread have also cited these sources.
How is an 7 minute amateur work of editing out-of-context quotes and clips refute 'empirical evidence' studied and determined by Fed economists to be irrelevant to your argument?
Simply stated, this is analogous to The Fed (San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan, Janet Yellen, et al) and The Bank if International Settlements vs. some crappy 7-minute YouTube video made by a conspiracy theorist who heard Ron Paul spouting off about 'affirmative action' loans.
If you tried this in a court of law you'd be laughed out of the room.
And how is enacting and improving a law intended to remove racism from lending practices 'racism' in itself?
As I wrote earlier, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Try to step out of your script and consider the evidence. Go back and look at the credit crisis video you posted. There is no mention of CRA or 'affirmative action' loans. You are reading into it based on fictional ideas manufactured and proliferated by propagandists: 'affirmative action' theories that are based on false assumptions and sketchy evidence.
Who's laughing here? Me for one. Your argument has drifted from one skewed heavily by your own biases into some kind of alternate reality of your own invention.
/sigh It's beyond me why you would continue to embarrass yourself here, Hedley.
Where does DanF comment on your Fox mashup video?
This is an easy question to answer. Put quite simply, Dan is smarter and a more reasonable person than you are. Less of an extremist and seemingly without the personality disorders that keep you plodding along in an obviously embarrassing losing argument. Dan doesn't dispute the contents of the video....and iirc ...several months ago it was Dan that was quite surprised when I first posted the same video of Cuomo calling the loans "affirmative action" here. Usually the Dems are more careful about the way in which they frame things and it's likely that Cuomo took a wrap on the knuckles from Clinton after it happened.
The clips were taken out of context and cut together to create the -illusion- that Cuomo said one thing or another in support of a theory that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.
Display. You've said this at least twice now with ninja...umm ....with nada to back it up. Show how the statements are supposedly taken out of context? It certainly appears that Cuomo makes the statements at an administration press conference. Oh wait a sec.....THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
YouTube video made by a conspiracy theorist who heard Ron Paul spouting off about 'affirmative action' loans.
Dunno what Ron Paul said about affirmative action. Don't care and it isn't what we're discussing here. Another attempt to obfuscate. Again, we have Cuomo making the statement that the loans were "affirmative action." Andrew Cuomo. fer gawd sakes...pay attention Hedley !
And how is enacting and improving a law intended to remove racism from lending practices 'racism' in itself?
Two wrongs don't make a right. For instance if white people go around hanging black people from trees it's definitely racism. And if black people hang white people from trees it's....guess what?.....it's still racism.
Slivers of thin evidence (Andrew Cuomo! in two clips from video shot 12 years ago) don't refute the technical analysis of the claims you're making. We've presented a mountain of evidence to the contrary, much of it from The Fed (you know, the Central Bank of the United States: the people who print the money, hold the gold and employ the economists).
"Dunno what Ron Paul said about affirmative action. Don't care and it isn't what we're discussing here."
Someone who writes as 'authoritatively' as you on this subject should know that Ron Paul was instrumental in propagating the falsehoods you are claiming as fact:
"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.'"
Had you read the links I cited earlier, you might have also seen this:
"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."
It is true that these people said and wrote these things, and it is also true that these claims have been vetted and refuted by The Federal Reserve Bank of The United States.
It may be true that some banks took advantage of CRA guidelines to issue extremely high-risk (fraudulent) loans that they shouldn't have, but these banks were not 'forced' or 'compelled' under CRA to do so. As cited earlier, the CRA rules require banks to make sound decisions and proscribe them from making loans that would knowingly lead to losses (cited earlier).
Your assumption that DanF (or anyone else for that matter) hasn't commented supports your position is unique. Following that logic, you might want to spend more time alone in a forest where the entire world can agree with you through silence.
"It's beyond me why you would continue to embarrass yourself here, Hedley."
If there's any source of embarrassment, it is that I would continue arguing with a mental zombie waving a YouTube video as decisive evidence that the world is flat.
Slivers of thin evidence (Andrew Cuomo! in two clips from video shot 12 years ago)
/// FINALLY. Whew ! ///
Hedley finally admits to the "evidence" that I provided. Although in typical weasel fashion he tries to spin it by minimizing or characterizing the evidence as sliver, thin and outdated.
This is actually a gotcha moment whenever you're discussing the real world with Hedley, seen above as I've highlighted in bold. This is as close as we're gonna get to his admitting the obvious facts that just won't suit his extremist, ideologue viewpoint.
Alas, it brings to memory the moment when Hedley finally admitted (yet again in weasel-like manner) that he didn't know that the "Janjaweed" are actually an Arab militia in the Sudan and not something that he could put into his bong to supplement his re-uptake inhibitors.
Actually, OnA, I've been running circles around you. You're little more than an amusing intellectual chew toy.
What this reminds me of is your obsessive reference to the 'Climategate' pseudo scandal: another instance where the right wing propaganda machine pulled the wool over your eyes and backed you and thousands of others like you into an ideological corner.
Did you hear on Fox that the accused scientists have been completely cleared and exonerated?
Same thing here. Whatever Andrew Cuomo said (or did not say, interpreted by Fox News and others) in 1998 has not been borne out by evidence over the subsequent 12 years according to the Bank of International Settlements, The Fed, FDIC, and the Treasury.
Commonly written Janjawid. A term you used in reference to candidate Barack Obama, which I called you out for racism. Your construction that I confused this term with marijuana was of your own projection.
Another strawman argument from an intellectual midget posting as 'Olives and Arrows'.
Hedley appears to be attempting a change of discussion subject to the climategate biz. Yet another obfuscation on his part. And in the process mischaracterizing any past conversations (re climategate) as somehow being "obsessive".
=========================== 'Janjaweed' (sic)
Commonly written Janjawid.
I know you're desperately hoping to find me in error, Hedley. But I think you might need something that's much more satisfying for you. For that you'll have to find something more substantial than a word which is commonly spelled in two different ways. The word is commonly spelled "janjaweed" in English and since I speak and write in the language I thought I might go with that particular spelling. Personal preference, (even though I was aware of alternative spelling.)
// " The Janjaweed (Arabic: Ų¬ŁŲ¬ŁŁŲÆ; variously transliterated Janjawid, in translation means "Devil on Horseback", [citation needed] is a blanket term used to describe mostly armed gunmen in Darfur, western Sudan, and now eastern Chad.[2] Using the United Nations definition, the Janjaweed comprised Arab tribes,.... " //
It was you that mischaracterized Obama with your misuse of my mention of the Janjaweed, ....you Hedley. Through your own ignorance you thought I had used term "Janjaweed" as referring to Barack Obama smoking marijuana and you foolishly made attempt to link it as a bigotted slur.
"Through your own ignorance you thought I had used term 'Janjaweed' as referring to Barack Obama smoking marijuana and you foolishly made attempt to link it as a bigotted slur."
Funny, I never wrote that. Must have been your intended meaning.
Olives, you're a vile amoral anti-intellectual. Piss off.
And as much as I take issue with The Fed and its policies, their inquiry into and pronouncements on the CRA factor in the mortgage crisis beat the fucking crap out of your YouTube conspiracy theory.
You lose. Why? You're the loser that you accuse others of being.
Funny, I never wrote that. Must have been your intended meaning.
Nothing funny about it, Hedley. That's what you wrote, you were actually that ignorant. And you wouldn't be so brazen about denying it now, if you didn't know that it's not possible to pull the quote from Atta's since crashed haloscan archives. Pretty soon you'll also be denying that you wrote your specific DSM number personality disorder here on these pages.
Still haven't started on that comprehension course, have you?
Like I said in the 10:09am comment, your denial of ignorance (re the Janjaweed) is dependent upon the fact that Atta's archives crashed and the quotes are now irretrievable.
On the other hand -- and this is to your credit, Hedley, -- you haven't (as of yet) denied posting the specific DSM number of your personality disorder here on the blog.
b) Having lost this argument, you're changing the subject. Again.
YOU attempted to change the subject (to 'climategate') with your 2:16am comment.
I first mentioned your ignorance of the Janjaweed (and your subsequent denials), an illustration of your continued pattern of failure to admit whenever you are mistaken. Which is alarmingly frequent. Mistaken much more often than a normal person would be likely to be very comfortable with.
Your position on 'Climategate' is identical to your position on this CRA issue. 'Climategate' has been disproven. 'Affirmative action' loans as a factor in the credit market collapse has been disproven by The Fed, BIS and FDIC.
I really don't desire providing any solid proof that you were ignorant of what 'Janjaweed' actually means. You and I both know this was the case and that you went on for several days before `finally` coming to a partial admission that you were ill-informed (ignorant) on the subject. I say a "partial" admission in the same sense as per your 11:24am comment here, above. In both cases (in the face of overwhelming evidence in my favor) you admitted to your losing position, albiet in your usual weasel-like minimalist fashion. Then (as now) you changed the subject, attempting to avoid further embarrassment for yourself.
I feel sad for you. Your shame in your inability to admit the weakness of your argument on the issue of 'affirmative action' lending forces you to resort to ad hominem attacks and dredging up your old smears.
Except, of course, for 'Islamisbad'
Clearly you're grasping at straws.
You lose. Give it a rest. Maybe get your blood pressure checked. You seem to being at risk of blowing a gasket.
My understanding was that you uese the term 'janjaweed' to smear candidate Barack Obama. I have no need to apologize for or retract my opinion on that. I stand by it. In my view (and I believe I share this view with many other readers on this blog) you are a coward, a racist, and a wildly distorted ideologue. Your sense of insecurity compels you to post endless garbage intended to provoke outrage from better education, better informed readers.
With respect to the thread topic, you might look in the mirror next time you use the term 'ignorant'.
Rising Hegemon
56 comments:
It's true that both parties are responsible for deficits.
And both voted in favor of invasion and funding of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But it was mostly the Democratic Party support for affirmative action mortgage lending that caused the housing crisis of 2008 and subsequently the economic downturn.
all they'd have to do is get rid of Bush's massive giveaway to the wealthy and we'd be well on our way to financial stability... as well as ending the wars and use some of that cash to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and develop the infrastructure for sustainable, renewable, GREEN energy... doing those things you'd have a built-in "jobs" program as well....
Olives, you're still peddling that crap?
Look at the chart: TARP, Fannie and Freddie compose a tiny fraction of the deficit. The argument that these caused the economic downturn doesn't hold up.
The economic downturn had a number of causes, most of them related to a flood of capital coming in from China a very low interest rates contributing to a bubble market, a deal driven mortgage industry desperate to roll over customers, banks gladly repackaging mortgages into CDOs and washing their hands of them, ratings agencies looking askance when evaluating these synthetic debt obligations, and investment banks marketing them to pension and sovereign wealth funds knowing that they'd likely default then betting against them with credit default swaps.
The outcome was a collapse in credit markets worldwide and continuing volatility.
Give it up, Olly. Your credibility is negative. Your regurgitation on economic points is costing you, just like your parroting of the East Anglia fraud.
O&A I usually ignore your troll prattling, using it for humor and for others to nibble on your worthless carcass, but today, from me, please – STFU!
Stop peddling that “both parties are responsible” bullshit. It’s not true; the deficits and resulting massive debt is clearly pointed at one party, with the debt owned by three presidents; one named Reagan, the others named Bush.
Although voting with the Repukes for the wars, it was the Democrats that thought maybe, maybe, we ought to hold off on that tax cut, and maybe, we ought to look - like we did every time this nation went to war - at a tax increase. The knee-jerk reaction from the Repugs was to scream “Tax and Spend”, “Tax and Spend”, and vilify fiscal responsibility to the point a tax increase is politically suicide. “Tax and Spend” may be an effective sound bite but “Tax and Spend” does one thing very well – it pays the damn bills! “Tax and Spend” is good economic policy. Ask “Bush the Smarter”.
The Rethuglicans blocked the attempt to put off the tax cut and any tax increase; and then raised the ante with a second round of tax cuts.
As for the Community Reinvestment Act, Federal Reserve Governor Randall S. Kroszner says you, and the Republican ball-gargling yam-bags blaming this on the CRA, are wrong. Again. And constantly.
CRA-covered banks made only 15% of the higher-priced first mortgage loans. Private mortgage companies and large bank affiliates made up the other 85%, none of them covered by CRA rules. Along with Kroszner, Janet Yellen, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, stated in a March 2008 said, "studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." The problem was never the CRA, it was what was done with the loans after they were packaged, sold, and used to make leveraged plays.
Go away.
And the innumeracy of the right shows itself again...
As the chart demonstrates, Bush's cutting taxes for the wealthy is the largest and fastest-growing cause of the deficit. So the bailouts have much less to do with the deficit than the tax cuts.
So-called "deficit hawks" will point at things like the National Endowment for the Arts ($0.155 billion in 2009) and TARP ($151 billion in 2009), but they are combined less than one fifth of defense spending ($782 billion in 2009), and most of the war funding is outside of that through "Emergency Supplementals" and "Emergency Budget Amendments."
Drowning government in a bathtub -- it's hard work. But to scream "help, I'm being drowned by the government" as you're doing it, that takes chutzpah!
BLAME THE CHIMP, BLAME THE W.
BLAME HIM!!!!!! end his tax cuts NOW!!!!
@12:41 PM
But Olyves is such an amusing piƱata. Why would we want it to STFU?
I've sent a letter to the Editor to my local newspaper with that same chart.
What are the odds it gets printed?
Pretty damn low.
The crazy part is that unfortunates like OnA are voting to cut their own Social Security to pay for rich people's tax cuts.
Its that simple.
zombie reagan not dead yet.
Time for free speech like the drivel and lies of such troll deserves no pulpit. Yet they steal the pulpit from those who voted for hope and change.
Because the money trickles from their fat overgorged and corrupt pockets.
vox
obama just needs to kick republikkklan ass. demand respect.
Not to mention the fact that Freddie and Fannie where taken out of the securitization game by congress when the bulk of the bad loans were going through (2003 to 2006 saw a decrease in the amount of loans secured by Fannie/Freddie:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/gseshare.png
Percentage of private sub-prime loans increased dramatically at this time:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/nongse.png
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/things-everyone-in-chicago-knows/
But you know... Facts and OnA are strangers to each other.
I fully realize that Freddie and Fannie didn't issue all of the affirmative action mortgages -- and also that these loans by themselves weren't enough to spark the housing crisis.
However, I also understand that most of these mortgages were highly irreponsible and that subsequently there were many players preying upon selling the bad debts in circular fashion until there were no more takers.
The lowered mortgage eligibily rules applied also caused others to overextend their debt ratio, those were mostly middle income people looking to flip houses for a quick profit. All and all a recipe for economic downfall once the conbination of bad debts started the downward cycle.
I also realize that leftists have an emotional need to protect victim politics (affirmative action) and yet another need to blame the Republicans for everything under the sun. Hence the silly, childish name calling such as Rethuglicans, Repugs and Repukes etc etc like Hedley uses at the 12:41 comment above
......later on I'll post a short video that explains how the housing crisis happened. Even dummies like Dan can understand these things if walked through it slowly......
K.
As promised, here's that video in two parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0zEXdDO5JU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhDkZjKBEw&feature=channel
Wrong again, OnA. @12:41 wasn't me.
Seen your video before. Not surprisingly, you are cherry picking facts to support an extremely biased subset of the entire situation.
There is one thing we can be sure of: when presented with a blizzard of facts to the contrary, OnA can be counted on to double down on his ideological stakes.
As stated previously: your credibility is in the negative OnA. You really ought to give it up: your rambling regurgitation of Beck, Limbaugh, et al simply proves what a rube you are. Digging a deeper hole for yourself is "irreponsible" further damaging your "eligibily" to be truly heard or appreciated.
The complete lack of class and childish name calling at 12:41 gave an appearance that it was probably your garbage, Hedley. And you've often been posting as "anonymous" ever since your Doctor allowed you back on blogging.
Umm. It's very noticeable that you didn't attempt to refute anything in the video.
Let's see if anybody attempts a well-reasoned rebuttal of the video. We know for certain that it won't be Hedley.
Anything other than a non-response, OnA?
Unlikely. You're obsessing on a small subset to the exclusion of a wide reality: confirmation bias.
Funny how OnA condescends other more educated posters here. We've got several PhDs, JDs and Masters yet OnA continues to ride in on his little hobby horses.
Keep riding, cowboy.
educated posters here. We've got several PhDs....
Hedley. Why do you continue to embarrass yourself with this (and other ways) of attempting to distract from your transparent failure in refuting a given argument?
And.... whomever it was claiming PhD status made it very obvious that they were lying.
IIRC it was somebody with the nic Dr something or other ?
He claimed to "have his PhD" rather than claiming the status in the manner with which somebody with a high level of education would phrase it.
ie "I'm a PhD"
What's your argument? All I see is a link to a YouTube video.
I recall last year you posted the same video. It does a pretty good job of explaining the chain reaction that lead to the credit market collapse. What it does ~not~ do is support your point that the CRA loans are the sole cause of the crisis.
Strongly suggest that you re-read @12:41 and DanF @1:11
Then again...
"He claimed to "have his PhD" rather than claiming the status in the manner with which somebody with a high level of education would phrase it.
ie "I'm a PhD"
Yes, that sure is proof positive that he was lying.
ROFLMAO
OnAnWorld seems to be such a simple place.
OnA, look at your video again.
There is nothing in there about 'affirmative action' loans. The incentives to lower qualifications for sub-prime mortgage buyers were market driven and as DanF states they were almost entirely private loans.
I correct myself on one point: you appear to revise your position on 'affirmative action' loans as the cause of the credit crisis from your first statement
"But it was mostly the Democratic Party support for affirmative action mortgage lending that caused the housing crisis of 2008 and subsequently the economic downturn."
to your later statement
"I fully realize that Freddie and Fannie didn't issue all of the affirmative action mortgages -- and also that these loans by themselves weren't enough to spark the housing crisis. "
so it's difficult to understand where exactly you are on this point. In general, seems like you've taken the bait on assigning blame for the greed of a hypermarket collapse on Democrats and low income housing. Talking points.
What it does ~not~ do is support your point that the CRA loans are the sole cause of the crisis.
Clearly, I didn't say that the loans were the sole cause.
And in your subsequent comment (at 3:15) you seem to have come to a slow, agonizing (almost an hour) realization that I didn't state anything close to that.
Are you sure your medication isn't off kilter? Just a little?
Inside of an hour you radically changed what you thought that I had written!! Perhaps your medication regimen has nothing to do with it and it's just a tad of reading comprehension problem.
The incentives to lower qualifications for sub-prime mortgage buyers were market driven and as DanF states they were almost entirely private loans.
That's not true, Hedley. Various leftist groups (ACORN, Barack Obama and other company included) through threatened massive class action and the Clinton administration through legislation
forced Fannie, Freddie (and other lenders) to lower mortgage qualifications.
The Clinton administration acknowledged that the lowered qualifications were "affirmative action" and were being forced upon the lending institutions.
Now ... Hedley (and Dan).....
Pay very close attention to the following video. Especially at about 2:40 when Cuomo even says it:
" they would not have qualified if not for the affirmative action on the part of the banks...yes"
"affirmative action"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
You're such a knob, Hedley.
And can I now expect you to repeat your nastiness of wishing illness and death upon me, especially now that I've provided irrefutable proof of "affirmative action' mortgage lending?
heh/
....just watched the balance of the video I linked to above. That's the first time that I've heard the affirmative action loans referred to as " NINJA loans"
no income, no job or assets.....
"...I didn't state anything close to that. "
But you did at the top of this thread: "affirmative action mortgage lending that caused the housing crisis of 2008 and subsequently the economic downturn." We've heard this point from you many times.
I think you're confusing 'sub-prime' and 'affirmative action'.
The spin on this from Fox and Rush Limbaugh (notably prominent at the top of 'related videos') is veiled racism. Much of the CRA and ACORN work has been to address redlining and discrimination.
The video is propaganda: it proves nothing. The comments by the Fed Governors cited above refute your argument.
Really? The first time you've heard of NINJA loans?
I suggest you learn more about NINJA loans. They started as a product of speculative mortgage loan originators in the private market: another factor in the market bubble in an unregulated free market. NINJA loans had nothing to do with 'affirmative action' or CRA, rather they were sub-prime loans products developed to satisfy the appetites of deal hungry financial players.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja_loan#No_Income_No_Job_no_Assets
OnA, I've studied, debated and written post-grad papers on the economic crisis and its root causes. I've spent a few hundred hours with former Fed economists and bankers discussing these issues. Nowhere in these discussions has it been suggested that ACORN or the CRA were a factor in the CDO/CDS financial bubble and economic collapse. The very idea is a propaganda ploy to manufacture controversy and hump the ratings. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Frank Luntz was behind this.
OnA, I've studied, debated and written post-grad papers on the economic crisis and its root causes.
Hedley what a pathetic bullshitter you are!
The only thing you've studied closely is your own navel -- and possibly your own tiny penile unit. And debating?/ well forget that! I wonder if you wished misfortune on others that pulverized the arguments of an idealogue such as yourself?
Once again you've chosen obfuscation over confronting or arguing the evidence I've shown, as here above in the linked Clinton administration video.
I can understand why you'd want to completely avoid that video since Cuomo himself refers to the bulk of the bad loans as "affirmative action". And in the same lil video Obama has also subsequently admitted to the affirmative action loans concept as having been faulty. Don't suppose you bothered with watching that far into the video? (if you in fact watched any of it whatsoever).
No, OnA. I'm being 100% truthful with you. I passed a 12 credit 500 level macroeconomics class with a 3.6. My professor and her husband were both Fed economists and wrote the book. We talked about NINJA loans weekly for over 9 months during the darkest months of the credit crisis.
I'm surprised that someone claiming your depth of knowledge in these areas has just recently learned about NINJA loans.
I did watch the video, and what I found was a bunch of clips slammed together with a highly biased 3rd party narrative that conflates the CRA and Federal laws (intended to eliminate redlining and discriminatory lending practices) with a wingnut theory that none of those people's statements support.
Sorry, your 'argument' doesn't withstand scrutiny. You might want to try changing the channel. Those Fox guys got your goat.
Sorry, your 'argument' doesn't withstand scrutiny. You might want to try changing the channel. Those Fox guys got your goat.
No need to apologize, Hedley. It's not as if your above comment wishes misfortune upon me, or anything nasty like that.
Not sure what you think Fox has to do with Cuomo's statement, other than they may have broadcast the presser. And speaking of that press conference, I'm pretty sure it's Andrew Cuomo, Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development that has his lips moving. And the words he clearly speaks (at about 2:40) are as follows:
" they would not have qualified if not for the affirmative action on the part of the banks...yes"
"affirmative action"
Now, Hedley. I know you might find this more than a little confusing but the words aren't actually spoken by some dark, evil Fox figure that you might have imagined in your feverish, leftist, backward thinking and revisionist mind. These words came directly from the mouth of Andrew Cuomo. Clinton's administration. Not Rush Limbaugh, not Ann Coulter, not a member of an evil Fox cabal that you've conjured and not even the ghost of Ronald Reagan.
Nosirree.....it was....
Andrew Cuomo.
A quick word of advice for you, Hedley. If you did indeed study economics you should consider augmenting that with some kind of a basic comprehension course.
lesson one:
Andrew Cuomo "they would not have qualified if not for the affirmative action on the part of the banks...yes"
What Andrew Cuomo said was taken out of context by the editors. He was talking about the effect of the CRA on borrowers who might have been redlined or suffered other forms of discrimination in lending.
Furthermore, there is no proof that any those loans are 'sub-prime' and the comments cited by DanF and Anon@ 12:40 show that the composition mortgage defaults is heavily weighted toward commercial sub-prime loans that have nothing to do with CRA or 'affirmative action' lending.
What's happening here is a conflation of 'sub-prime' and CRA 'affirmative action' loans and it is specious, offensive and veiled racism. Lies intended to smear Democrats and deflect responsibility for the economic failures of the last 10 years.
Regarding basic comprehension: don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. Unfortunately, your facts are a product of wingnut propaganda mills. Your resistance to see beyond that is telling.
I suggest you go back and look carefully at the 'credit crisis' video you posted. Listen carefully. How many times is 'affirmative action' mentioned? How many times is 'sub-prime' mentioned?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/business/economy/09rich.html
Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich
The well-to-do have stopped paying their home loans in greater numbers, and apparently with less guilt.
"The affirmative action lending meant that the banks had to lower the qualifications for everyone, not just exclusive to people that benefitted from affirmative action."
No, CRA did not force banks to make high-risk loans. The banks made high-risk sub-prime loans by their own choice.
"The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods. The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business...
"The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
"Some economists, politicians and other commentators have charged that the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis by encouraging banks to make unsafe loans. Economists from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, dispute this contention. The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis
Go back and look at your credit crisis video again. What factors are compelling the banks to make risky loans? There is no mention of government mandate or 'affirmative action': it's all unregulated free-market risk/reward. Frank Luntz and Company have persuaded you that the sub-prime loans that were created between 2003 and 2008 are the same as the CRA loans. But they're not. The failure rate of these loans has a very low correlation to the default rate in the market in general.
Perhaps things are different in Canada, but here it wasn't so long ago when people were refused loans because solely they were the wrong color or had the wrong address. The CRA was created to address these injustices. Your identification of these policies as 'racism' is telling.
Hedley.
Everybody else reading this thread -- including DanF -- have long since realized that Cuomo actually says that the risky loaning practises are "affirmative action". If they thought there were any holes whatsoever in what I've asserted here they would be gleefully cartwheeling while pointing to any deficiencies or falsehoods.
Andrew Cuomo said precisely what I quoted him as saying (at 2:40) and then follows that up by admitting that the result of the riskier loans will by a higher default rate.
This is a fact, Hedley, and it simply doesn't matter how spooky the evil righies at Fox appear to you. At this point Dan and co are sitting back in silence and cringing at the stubborn state of denial you've displayed here. And they're probably laughing at your posing as a person with formal education in economics.
I'm not sure why you continue to deny/ignore what Cuomo actually says on the video ("affirmative action") Perhaps you think that by continually repeating your lies that it will eventually come to be accepted fact? I think it was Goebbels that said something about that.... repeating a lie often enough.......
Your identification of these policies as 'racism' is telling.
It's obvious to all except some very stupid people (or ideologues) that favoring one person over another because of race is racism. The dictionary shows that I'm correct in the characterization of affirmative action based on race as being rasism.
here:
rac·ism /ĖreÉŖsÉŖzÉm/ [rey-siz-uhm]
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races
dis·crim·i·na·tion /dÉŖĖskrÉŖmÉĖneÉŖŹÉn/ [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] –noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.
Hedley.
Everybody else reading this thread -- including DanF -- have long since realized that Cuomo actually says that the risky loaning practises are "affirmative action". If they thought there were any holes whatsoever in what I've asserted here they would be gleefully cartwheeling while pointing to any deficiencies or falsehoods.
Andrew Cuomo said precisely what I quoted him as saying (at 2:40) and then follows that up by admitting that the result of the riskier loans will by a higher default rate.
This is a fact, Hedley, and it simply doesn't matter how spooky the evil righies at Fox appear to you. At this point Dan and co are sitting back in silence and cringing at the stubborn state of denial you've displayed here. And they're probably laughing at your posing as a person with formal education in economics.
I'm not sure why you continue to deny/ignore what Cuomo actually says on the video ("affirmative action") Perhaps you think that by continually repeating your lies that it will eventually come to be accepted fact? I think it was Goebbels that said something about that.... repeating a lie often enough.......
Your identification of these policies as 'racism' is telling.
It's obvious to all except some very stupid people (or ideologues) that favoring one person over another because of race is racism. The dictionary shows that I'm correct in the characterization of affirmative action based on race as being rasism.
here:
rac·ism /ĖreÉŖsÉŖzÉm/ [rey-siz-uhm]
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races
dis·crim·i·na·tion /dÉŖĖskrÉŖmÉĖneÉŖŹÉn/ [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] –noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.
OnA, you're always good for a laugh.
"Everybody else reading this thread -- including DanF..."
Where does DanF comment on your Fox mashup video? How do you know anyone else is still reading this thread?
"And they're probably laughing at your posing as a person with formal education in economics..."
Judging from your very recent (yesterday) discovery of NINJA loans, I question whether you have a strong enough basis in economics to know whether or not I'm not posing. I stand by my statements, my academic work and confirmation by the school I graduated from: a Top 30 university.
"Andrew Cuomo said precisely what I quoted him as saying (at 2:40) and then follows that up by admitting that the result of the riskier loans will by a higher default rate.
This is a fact, Hedley..."
It is a fact that two separate statements were made by Cuomo on video, but the meaning of those statements is framed and biased by the editor. The clips were taken out of context and cut together to create the -illusion- that Cuomo said one thing or another in support of a theory that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.
Lastly, there is -no- evidence that CRA supported mortgages (what you and the right call 'affirmative action' mortgages) are the same sub-prime mortgages that created the mortgage credit crisis of 2007 to the present. The Fed has looked at this and issued statements which I cited. Other commenters in this thread have also cited these sources.
How is an 7 minute amateur work of editing out-of-context quotes and clips refute 'empirical evidence' studied and determined by Fed economists to be irrelevant to your argument?
Simply stated, this is analogous to The Fed (San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan, Janet Yellen, et al) and The Bank if International Settlements vs. some crappy 7-minute YouTube video made by a conspiracy theorist who heard Ron Paul spouting off about 'affirmative action' loans.
If you tried this in a court of law you'd be laughed out of the room.
And how is enacting and improving a law intended to remove racism from lending practices 'racism' in itself?
As I wrote earlier, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Try to step out of your script and consider the evidence. Go back and look at the credit crisis video you posted. There is no mention of CRA or 'affirmative action' loans. You are reading into it based on fictional ideas manufactured and proliferated by propagandists: 'affirmative action' theories that are based on false assumptions and sketchy evidence.
Who's laughing here? Me for one. Your argument has drifted from one skewed heavily by your own biases into some kind of alternate reality of your own invention.
(p.s. you might want to take it easy on the 'Publish your Comment' button.)
/sigh
It's beyond me why you would continue to embarrass yourself here, Hedley.
Where does DanF comment on your Fox mashup video?
This is an easy question to answer. Put quite simply, Dan is smarter and a more reasonable person than you are. Less of an extremist and seemingly without the personality disorders that keep you plodding along in an obviously embarrassing losing argument. Dan doesn't dispute the contents of the video....and iirc ...several months ago it was Dan that was quite surprised when I first posted the same video of Cuomo calling the loans "affirmative action" here. Usually the Dems are more careful about the way in which they frame things and it's likely that Cuomo took a wrap on the knuckles from Clinton after it happened.
The clips were taken out of context and cut together to create the -illusion- that Cuomo said one thing or another in support of a theory that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.
Display.
You've said this at least twice now with ninja...umm ....with nada to back it up.
Show how the statements are supposedly taken out of context? It certainly appears that Cuomo makes the statements at an administration press conference. Oh wait a sec.....THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
YouTube video made by a conspiracy theorist who heard Ron Paul spouting off about 'affirmative action' loans.
Dunno what Ron Paul said about affirmative action. Don't care and it isn't what we're discussing here. Another attempt to obfuscate. Again, we have Cuomo making the statement that the loans were "affirmative action."
Andrew Cuomo.
fer gawd sakes...pay attention Hedley !
And how is enacting and improving a law intended to remove racism from lending practices 'racism' in itself?
Two wrongs don't make a right. For instance if white people go around hanging black people from trees it's definitely racism. And if black people hang white people from trees it's....guess what?.....it's still racism.
OnA, I have paying close attention.
Slivers of thin evidence (Andrew Cuomo! in two clips from video shot 12 years ago) don't refute the technical analysis of the claims you're making. We've presented a mountain of evidence to the contrary, much of it from The Fed (you know, the Central Bank of the United States: the people who print the money, hold the gold and employ the economists).
"Dunno what Ron Paul said about affirmative action. Don't care and it isn't what we're discussing here."
Someone who writes as 'authoritatively' as you on this subject should know that Ron Paul was instrumental in propagating the falsehoods you are claiming as fact:
"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.'"
Had you read the links I cited earlier, you might have also seen this:
"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."
It is true that these people said and wrote these things, and it is also true that these claims have been vetted and refuted by The Federal Reserve Bank of The United States.
It may be true that some banks took advantage of CRA guidelines to issue extremely high-risk (fraudulent) loans that they shouldn't have, but these banks were not 'forced' or 'compelled' under CRA to do so. As cited earlier, the CRA rules require banks to make sound decisions and proscribe them from making loans that would knowingly lead to losses (cited earlier).
Your assumption that DanF (or anyone else for that matter) hasn't commented supports your position is unique. Following that logic, you might want to spend more time alone in a forest where the entire world can agree with you through silence.
"It's beyond me why you would continue to embarrass yourself here, Hedley."
If there's any source of embarrassment, it is that I would continue arguing with a mental zombie waving a YouTube video as decisive evidence that the world is flat.
OnA, I have paying close attention.
Slivers of thin evidence (Andrew Cuomo! in two clips from video shot 12 years ago)
/// FINALLY. Whew ! ///
Hedley finally admits to the "evidence" that I provided. Although in typical weasel fashion he tries to spin it by minimizing or characterizing the evidence as sliver, thin and outdated.
This is actually a gotcha moment whenever you're discussing the real world with Hedley, seen above as I've highlighted in bold. This is as close as we're gonna get to his admitting the obvious facts that just won't suit his extremist, ideologue viewpoint.
Alas, it brings to memory the moment when Hedley finally admitted (yet again in weasel-like manner) that he didn't know that the "Janjaweed" are actually an Arab militia in the Sudan and not something that he could put into his bong to supplement his re-uptake inhibitors.
/// Look! Andrew Cuomo! ///
Actually, OnA, I've been running circles around you. You're little more than an amusing intellectual chew toy.
What this reminds me of is your obsessive reference to the 'Climategate' pseudo scandal: another instance where the right wing propaganda machine pulled the wool over your eyes and backed you and thousands of others like you into an ideological corner.
Did you hear on Fox that the accused scientists have been completely cleared and exonerated?
Same thing here. Whatever Andrew Cuomo said (or did not say, interpreted by Fox News and others) in 1998 has not been borne out by evidence over the subsequent 12 years according to the Bank of International Settlements, The Fed, FDIC, and the Treasury.
Olives and Arrows, you are a fucking idiot.
/.
'Janjaweed' (sic)
Commonly written Janjawid. A term you used in reference to candidate Barack Obama, which I called you out for racism. Your construction that I confused this term with marijuana was of your own projection.
Another strawman argument from an intellectual midget posting as 'Olives and Arrows'.
Hedley appears to be attempting a change of discussion subject to the climategate biz. Yet another obfuscation on his part. And in the process mischaracterizing any past conversations (re climategate) as somehow being "obsessive".
===========================
'Janjaweed' (sic)
Commonly written Janjawid.
I know you're desperately hoping to find me in error, Hedley. But I think you might need something that's much more satisfying for you. For that you'll have to find something more substantial than a word which is commonly spelled in two different ways. The word is commonly spelled "janjaweed" in English and since I speak and write in the language I thought I might go with that particular spelling. Personal preference, (even though I was aware of alternative spelling.)
// " The Janjaweed (Arabic: Ų¬ŁŲ¬ŁŁŲÆ; variously transliterated Janjawid, in translation means "Devil on Horseback", [citation needed] is a blanket term used to describe mostly armed gunmen in Darfur, western Sudan, and now eastern Chad.[2] Using the United Nations definition, the Janjaweed comprised Arab tribes,.... " //
It was you that mischaracterized Obama with your misuse of my mention of the Janjaweed, ....you Hedley.
Through your own ignorance you thought I had used term "Janjaweed" as referring to Barack Obama smoking marijuana and you foolishly made attempt to link it as a bigotted slur.
You're such an ignoramus, Hedley.
"Through your own ignorance you thought I had used term 'Janjaweed' as referring to Barack Obama smoking marijuana and you foolishly made attempt to link it as a bigotted slur."
Funny, I never wrote that. Must have been your intended meaning.
Olives, you're a vile amoral anti-intellectual. Piss off.
And as much as I take issue with The Fed and its policies, their inquiry into and pronouncements on the CRA factor in the mortgage crisis beat the fucking crap out of your YouTube conspiracy theory.
You lose. Why? You're the loser that you accuse others of being.
Funny, I never wrote that. Must have been your intended meaning.
Nothing funny about it, Hedley. That's what you wrote, you were actually that ignorant. And you wouldn't be so brazen about denying it now, if you didn't know that it's not possible to pull the quote from Atta's since crashed haloscan archives.
Pretty soon you'll also be denying that you wrote your specific DSM number personality disorder here on these pages.
"That's what you wrote"
a) Where's your proof?
b) Having lost this argument, you're changing the subject. Again.
That's what you wrote"
a) Where's your proof?
Still haven't started on that comprehension course, have you?
Like I said in the 10:09am comment, your denial of ignorance (re the Janjaweed) is dependent upon the fact that Atta's archives crashed and the quotes are now irretrievable.
On the other hand -- and this is to your credit, Hedley, -- you haven't (as of yet) denied posting the specific DSM number of your personality disorder here on the blog.
b) Having lost this argument, you're changing the subject. Again.
YOU attempted to change the subject (to 'climategate') with your 2:16am comment.
I first mentioned your ignorance of the Janjaweed (and your subsequent denials), an illustration of your continued pattern of failure to admit whenever you are mistaken. Which is alarmingly frequent.
Mistaken much more often than a normal person would be likely to be very comfortable with.
No proof? Too bad.
Your position on 'Climategate' is identical to your position on this CRA issue. 'Climategate' has been disproven. 'Affirmative action' loans as a factor in the credit market collapse has been disproven by The Fed, BIS and FDIC.
In both cases, the facts are not in your favor.
No proof? Too bad.
I really don't desire providing any solid proof that you were ignorant of what 'Janjaweed' actually means.
You and I both know this was the case and that you went on for several days before `finally` coming to a partial admission that you were ill-informed (ignorant) on the subject.
I say a "partial" admission in the same sense as per your 11:24am comment here, above. In both cases (in the face of overwhelming evidence in my favor) you admitted to your losing position, albiet in your usual weasel-like minimalist fashion. Then (as now) you changed the subject, attempting to avoid further embarrassment for yourself.
I feel sad for you. Your shame in your inability to admit the weakness of your argument on the issue of 'affirmative action' lending forces you to resort to ad hominem attacks and dredging up your old smears.
Except, of course, for 'Islamisbad'
Clearly you're grasping at straws.
You lose. Give it a rest. Maybe get your blood pressure checked. You seem to being at risk of blowing a gasket.
My understanding was that you uese the term 'janjaweed' to smear candidate Barack Obama. I have no need to apologize for or retract my opinion on that. I stand by it. In my view (and I believe I share this view with many other readers on this blog) you are a coward, a racist, and a wildly distorted ideologue. Your sense of insecurity compels you to post endless garbage intended to provoke outrage from better education, better informed readers.
With respect to the thread topic, you might look in the mirror next time you use the term 'ignorant'.
/.
"...your continued pattern of failure to admit whenever you are mistaken. Which is alarmingly frequent."
You really ought to invest in a mirror, Olives.
...provide an example where I was wholly mistaken, an example other than a misspelling, typo or the like.
Provide.
Oh...O .... O !
I've got an example!
I was wrong when I said that Barack Obama would renege on his already revised promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison facility.
Ummm...wait a sec... Oops ! I wasn't wrong about that one either.
;)
.
Post a Comment