So he's losing Europeans too? Who does that leave? Are Michelle and the girls still talking to him? How about that basketball trash talking guy from the other night?
How can ANY THINKING LIBERAL be critiquing BOHICA after just 40 days?
And what are you in charge of? Let me tell you what you're in charge of... 2 things: jack and shit. And jack just left town.
HLF usually signs his posts so it must not be him. At least he enough balls to put his name on his bullshit. Probably one of his buddies doing a drive-by.
Let me tell you something Analmouth; You think it will be cool when America finally falls apart. You'll say "I was rigth! I told you so!" Then me and Jimbo and Spider and Poots and Schteveo and Annie and C-Bug and all the rest of us will kick the shit out of you, take your stuff and leave you crying in the streets. You see, you may have the power in Washington rigth now, be we have the power in real world. You don't know that because we are good law abiding citizens who love this country and typically have a "live and let live" attitude. But when pushed by twerps like you, we typically end up knocking your teeth out.
So go ahead and gloat over your victory but when you're cold and hungry because there is no electricity and no food, don't knock on our doors. We'll have plenty for each other but none for you.
I'm glad you're happy and feel free to post more. We're big boys and girls. We can take it. Tell us how stupid we are and how we're all losers. Its OK. I actually hope your right and idiot in White House brings the economy back and makes American great again. I don't think he will. But I hope he does.
Deleting comments is the last bastion of the weak and clueless. You can't think on your feet or debate so must delete. I'm sure you fancy yourself vidndictive but really, you're just proving HLT's point. That conservatives are not up to par.
Jeez, give the guy a break. How much shit can you cram into a month and a half? I know I would be putting off my trip to Europe if I were in his shoes, all things considered.
I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, since i don't see any comments from The Puke, which is fine with me.
As for Yobama and Europe, they're upset because they figured he'd be over there with boatlaods of money for them. And Brown, the socilaist pansy from Britain is also looking for a huge handout. Man, when the smell of free cheese is in the air, the whole world starts looking to us. I say let 'em all eat cake!
Uh, here's a hint everyone, Schteveo hasn't deleted ANY comments. Ever.
And like Jimbo said, if we delete insults it doesn't make us weak, stupid or anything else.
I don't and have never objected to HLT's ideas or opinions, just his insults and name calling. I'm up for a debate of issues. Calling us mindless, idiots, drones, etc, etc, etc, isn't debate.
I'll take blame/credit - depending on your stance - for deleting some (not all - there are more ‘deleters’ than me) of HLF's posts. The posts that are purely hateful name-calling and have no redeeming social value what-so-ever have no business being read by us or our visitors. They demean the home.
I look at it this way: I will NOT let some stranger walk in off the street - into my house - and profanely belittle my family with no other purpose other than to making them angry. If I did, I would be a worthless family member.
BUT… I have never, and will never delete one of his posts because of his ideology - no matter how wrong I think his ideology is. I’m not a book-burner or ideal crusher. If the dumb SOB wants to post an opinion, that’s fine. But the minute he begins pretending to read my family’s thoughts and calling them names without just cause – the party’s over.
If you fine folks determine that it’s quantity over quality – and his insults are actually important – I’ll be happy to cease and desist. Fully. My being intolerant of purposefully hurtful insults can end in two ways.
Go up against what? Constant claims that everything is the republicans fault (it isn't, we've proved it, you ignored us), because they've had power for the last 30 years (they haven't, we've proved it, you've ignored us) because we are all republicans (we're not, we've said so many, many times, you've ignored us) and we all vote republican (many of us don't, we've told you that, you've ignored us)...
What the fuck is there to debate, HLF? It's like talking to a brick wall, only with less intelligence! The only thing you bring is the same three, tired arguments that we've discussed over and over again, and massive amounts of insult.
Why you think it makes us cowards that we are tired of listening to you, like a broken record, I don't know, but it most certainly is not the case.
However, like always, now that i've told you, you'll ignore me and continue believing what you want, anyway, because reality has never been that important to you, has it? kind of like when i agreed with you three posts down that 40 days was a little quick to condemn Obama and you replied to me by making fun of me for condemning Obama after only 40 days.
You are an idiot, with very low reading comprehension skill, regurgitating the three arguments you can remember after reading them off of some liberal blog site (ie, someone else's ideas) over and over again, intermixed with insult and personal attack.
You want me gone because your parents are feeling the effects of the ideology you subscribe to and you got pissed that I mentioned it.
Don't blame your guilt on me.
Had we not pursued the greed culture of conservatism, many people, concluding your parents, wouldn't be suffering right now.
You people always see the opposition as rude and nasty but must not possess mirrors. You are bitter, nasty, negative and hope for nothing but failure since your ideas have FAILED so miserably.
We just ended a 30 year period of conservative dominance that will damage you and all those close to you.
You want me gone because your parents are feeling the effects of the ideology you subscribe to and you got pissed that I mentioned it.
Your attempt to ascribe personal motives when you don’t know shit aside, I was mad because you were gleefully reporting to me that you were glad that my parents “got what they deserved”. That is a bit more than “mentioning it” as you claim you did. Agreed?
Which brings me to the next lie in the same sentence:
feeling the effects of the ideology you subscribe to
This problem was brought about by liberal policies, not by any supposed ideology that I subscribe to. You have not yet proven one tiny iota that this was caused by anything other than a push by liberals to put people into mortgages that should not have been into mortgages. You’ve argued that it was greedy house flippers. I’ve agreed that they were certainly complicit, but that the entire problem was rooted in the liberal push for more “diversity” in home ownership. The opportunity would not have existed for these “greedy” house flippers if your liberal scum heroes hadn’t created the opportunity in the first place. You’ve also argued that the repealment of Glass-Steagal was the reason, which I have shown was not the reason, but was merely a contributing factor in the ability for the banks to hide the problem, by securitizing the bad debt. Glass-Steagal did nothing to create the problem, it would exist with or without it’s repealment. All it did was allow the bankers to hide it for a bit longer.
Had we not pursued the greed culture of conservatism, many people, concluding your parents, wouldn't be suffering right now.
It is beyond me how you keep claiming that making risky, stupid investments is a conservative ideology. What, exactly, does the word conservative mean?
This was not a conservative problem. It was an AMERICAN problem. We got too opulent for our own good. Proof that it isn’t a conservative problem is that liberals are losing houses because of dub-prime defaults at the same, or bigger, rate than conservatives. You’re claim here is fallacious and all washed up, HLF, but I’ve told you that before, haven’t I?
You people always see the opposition as rude and nasty but must not possess mirrors. You are bitter, nasty, negative and hope for nothing but failure since your ideas have FAILED so miserably.
You really have no handle on reality, do you? Have you read the posts that you put on here? The sheer, unabashed vitriol that you have posted? You accusing us of being rude and nasty is like the pot calling the kettle black, pal. You want the level of discourse to be higher than it is, then you lead the way. Between you and me, you were the one that started the ugliness. I was nice to you for months, until you started tap-dancing with glee and told me that my parents deserved to lose their nest egg because they believed in a different political ideology than you do.
I will reiterate that it was not the ideology of conservatism that caused this problem, no matter what spin on reality that you want to put on it.
We just ended a 30 year period of conservative dominance that will damage you and all those close to you.
I don’t even know why I’m doing this. After everything I posted above, in my previous post, about you needing to come up with something new, you’ve SIMPLY REGURGITATED THE SAME, TIRED, WORN-OUT, BULLSHIT, AND TOTALLY WRONG LINES THAT YOU ALWAYS DO.
You’re mental capacity must be severly limited if all you can come up with are the same three arguments, over and over again, no matter how many times we show you how wrong you are.
And with that, I’m done with you. I’ll go talk to the brick wall in my basement instead. It has more intelligence and a better grip on reality.
I have posted articles pointing out that "poor people getting mortgages forced on the banks by liberalism" is wrong. I've asked the question:
If banks were "forced" to make those loans, why did PRIVATE firms like Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG and Lehman Bros buy them? So they could die? Get a clue, bud.
Glass Steagall was implemented in the 1930s precisely because of this same situation occurring in the 1920s when banks engaged in bad financial dealings with investors. After the repeal it happened again and that's where we are now.
I have posted articles showing you how the bush administration ignored the warnings. I have pointed out that the debt doubled under bush and the republican Congress. I have pointed out that liberals have had no power since the 60s.
The conservative revolution of tax-cutting and deregulation took us down.
That's why they are out of power now.
You have not backed up your assertions with anything concrete except statements that my sources are wrong.
Keep believing in your precious conservatism and you too will be in dire straits.
If banks were "forced" to make those loans, why did PRIVATE firms like Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG and Lehman Bros buy them?
Because they were bundled up and hidden in securities. I've already answered that question. Glass Steagal repeal did not cause the problem. You have more or less admitted that in your post. All it did was allow the banks making these super risky loans to hide what they did by securitizing the bad debt.
I repeat, Glass Steagal did not cause this problem. It just gave the asses that got us into it a way to hide it for a little longer.
I have posted articles showing you how the bush administration ignored the warnings.
I never argued that they didn't? What I did say was that 7 republican senators DID get together and try to force congress to do something about the problem, but congress was controlled by democrats at the time, and guess what happened? Nothing. Liberals did just as much nothing about it as the republicans did, pal. Admit it. They were given the chance and did nothing, too, so don't say it was just one side or the other. Both sides are culpable in this mess.
I have pointed out that the debt doubled under bush and the republican Congress.
I never argued that point either, but I HAVE pointed out to you that Bush and his administration deviated from conservative principals to do so. Bush is no more a conservative than Bill Clinton was. You keep lumping republican and conservative into the same category, and it simply isn't true, and you know it. To say that massive spending, huge growth of government, intrusions into private affairs, and so forth, as Bush did during his presidency is CONSERVATISM, well, if you believe that, i simply cannot help you.
Conservatism stands in complete opposite of everything that Bush and his lackeys stand for.
I have pointed out that liberals have had no power since the 60s.
And that is simply a lie that we have proven false many times, so move on.
You have not backed up your assertions with anything concrete except statements that my sources are wrong
Oh, but I have. If you actually read what I've written above, and in almost every one of my previous posts.
I'll admit, i did get a little lazy on the one response where I discredited the sources. However, i've approached the subject many times since, twice in this thread alone...
Basically, you are wrong. The repealment of Glass-Steagal did not...
DID. NOT.
...cause banks to make huge amounts of highly risky loans. I'm not even sure you are foolish enough to argue that point. Or are you?
And let's face it. it was the huge amount of highly risky loans being offered, that were creating an artificial demand for housing due to the highly available credit, that were at the root of this problem. Glass Steagal repealment only created a situation where the loans that had gone bad could be hidden for a while longer.
Or are you really trying to argue that the repeal of Glass Steagal created the highly risky loan practices that caused this mess?
And stop trying to say that I am blaming it all on the poor people. I never said that. I am blaming on EVERYONE, poor and rich alike, who used highly risky loans to buy a house that they couldn't afford, and then bet on the come that they would be able to sell when it came due. Financial and social status has nothing to do with it. Stupidity does.
Please respond to what I've wwritten like you did last time. I appreciate the civil discourse. it is actually kind of fun.
Because they were bundled up and hidden in securities.
The investment firms were the ones buying the loans to bundle. Banks did not bundle. That assertion alone costs you most of the intelligence points.
What I did say was that 7 republican senators DID get together and try to force congress to do something about the problem, but congress was controlled by democrats at the time, and guess what happened? Nothing.
The period when concerns were raised over Fannie & Freddie (though they were not the cause of the mess, they were a symptom) was 2005. Democrats did not control shit then. More points lost.
And who stopped regulation of F&F anyway? REPUBLICANS:
Internal Freddie Mac budget records show $11.7 million was paid to 52 outside lobbyists and consultants in 2006. Power brokers such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were recruited with six-figure contracts. Freddie Mac paid the following amounts to the firms of former Republican lawmakers or ex-GOP staffers in 2006:
You:
Liberals did just as much nothing about it as the republicans did, pal. Admit it. They were given the chance and did nothing, too, so don't say it was just one side or the other. Both sides are culpable in this mess.
There were no liberals with power. Republicans ran Congress and the White House.
Bush and his administration deviated from conservative principals to do so. Bush is no more a conservative than Bill Clinton was.
Of course. When conservatives fail (and they always do) they weren't "real" conservatives. Old trick. At one time Reagan got accused of not being a "real" conservative.
The repealment of Glass-Steagal did not...
DID. NOT.
...cause banks to make huge amounts of highly risky loans.
No, it allowed them to. Wall Street enocuraged it.
Before the repeal, a much smaller fraction of loans were sold. Banks who originated loans had a vested interest in the loans not being too risky. After repeal, the risk was passed to Wall Street who had an insatiable hunger for the loans they were bundling, giving fraudulent high ratings to and selling.
The repeal played a HUGE part in this. Enormous. That's why it was created in the 1930s. To keep banks from gambling with depositors money. Now we get to bail out the banks, the investment houses (the ones that aren't dead) and soon, the FDIC who was forced to cover the deposits the banks pissed away on porn while they were in bed with Wall Street.
All of it made possible by a deregulatory environment promoted by free-market capitalism, the religion of the political conservatives.
They set the policy agenda for 28 years, held the reins for most of that time and destroyed the country.
24 comments:
So he's losing Europeans too? Who does that leave? Are Michelle and the girls still talking to him? How about that basketball trash talking guy from the other night?
How can ANY THINKING LIBERAL be critiquing BOHICA after just 40 days?
I wonder?
ROFLMFAO!!!
I forgot.
Dickhead.
Did you guys see what the Obama's got the British PM as gifts. So funny...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1159627/Just-wanted-Barack-Obamas-blockbuster-gift-25-DVDs-Brown-reaffirm-special-relationship.html
Was anybody on this site ever in power? I wasn't.
And what are you in charge of? Let me tell you what you're in charge of... 2 things: jack and shit. And jack just left town.
HLF usually signs his posts so it must not be him. At least he enough balls to put his name on his bullshit. Probably one of his buddies doing a drive-by.
Let me tell you something Analmouth; You think it will be cool when America finally falls apart. You'll say "I was rigth! I told you so!" Then me and Jimbo and Spider and Poots and Schteveo and Annie and C-Bug and all the rest of us will kick the shit out of you, take your stuff and leave you crying in the streets. You see, you may have the power in Washington rigth now, be we have the power in real world. You don't know that because we are good law abiding citizens who love this country and typically have a "live and let live" attitude. But when pushed by twerps like you, we typically end up knocking your teeth out.
So go ahead and gloat over your victory but when you're cold and hungry because there is no electricity and no food, don't knock on our doors. We'll have plenty for each other but none for you.
I'm glad you're happy and feel free to post more. We're big boys and girls. We can take it. Tell us how stupid we are and how we're all losers. Its OK. I actually hope your right and idiot in White House brings the economy back and makes American great again. I don't think he will. But I hope he does.
Abu, buddy, take a breath. I think that last comment is linked on the wrong topic.
But you're right, HLT is a total boob. No, that defames boobs.
I don't care about europe or hlf. they are all "merde"
That didn't look like our regular Anon. That has the odd and annoying sounds of an HLT comment.
And just how is it that deleting mindless name calling brings is down, or makes us pussies?
Dickhead.
Excuse me, Nameless Dickhead.
I am all powerful, except that when Steveo puts HLF's comments in the trashcan I cannot read them
some of them are really funny
Deleting comments is the last bastion of the weak and clueless.
You can't think on your feet or debate so must delete.
I'm sure you fancy yourself vidndictive but really, you're just proving HLT's point. That conservatives are not up to par.
Jeez, give the guy a break. How much shit can you cram into a month and a half? I know I would be putting off my trip to Europe if I were in his shoes, all things considered.
"How can ANY THINKING LIBERAL be critiquing BOHICA after just 40 days?"
what do you call a thinking liberal?
A former liberal
you're just proving HLT's point. That conservatives are not up to par.
anonypuss
March 5, 2009 3:51 PM
I don't play golf, and I don't cater to name-calling fools. Refusing to be insulted is a virtue, not a vice.
Try thinking. You might like it.
I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, since i don't see any comments from The Puke, which is fine with me.
As for Yobama and Europe, they're upset because they figured he'd be over there with boatlaods of money for them. And Brown, the socilaist pansy from Britain is also looking for a huge handout. Man, when the smell of free cheese is in the air, the whole world starts looking to us. I say let 'em all eat cake!
Uh, here's a hint everyone, Schteveo hasn't deleted ANY comments. Ever.
And like Jimbo said, if we delete insults it doesn't make us weak, stupid or anything else.
I don't and have never objected to HLT's ideas or opinions, just his insults and name calling. I'm up for a debate of issues. Calling us mindless, idiots, drones, etc, etc, etc, isn't debate.
I'll take blame/credit - depending on your stance - for deleting some (not all - there are more ‘deleters’ than me) of HLF's posts. The posts that are purely hateful name-calling and have no redeeming social value what-so-ever have no business being read by us or our visitors. They demean the home.
I look at it this way: I will NOT let some stranger walk in off the street - into my house - and profanely belittle my family with no other purpose other than to making them angry. If I did, I would be a worthless family member.
BUT… I have never, and will never delete one of his posts because of his ideology - no matter how wrong I think his ideology is. I’m not a book-burner or ideal crusher. If the dumb SOB wants to post an opinion, that’s fine. But the minute he begins pretending to read my family’s thoughts and calling them names without just cause – the party’s over.
If you fine folks determine that it’s quantity over quality – and his insults are actually important – I’ll be happy to cease and desist. Fully. My being intolerant of purposefully hurtful insults can end in two ways.
I deleted 2
wimp.
)B-)
Of course you deleted. You can't debate so you delete.
You insult me but then claim that's why you delete my posts. Weak. Lame. Your posts are as vile as mine.
Just admit you don't have the cojones to go up against me and we'll call it a day.
Puttas.
Go up against what? Constant claims that everything is the republicans fault (it isn't, we've proved it, you ignored us), because they've had power for the last 30 years (they haven't, we've proved it, you've ignored us) because we are all republicans (we're not, we've said so many, many times, you've ignored us) and we all vote republican (many of us don't, we've told you that, you've ignored us)...
What the fuck is there to debate, HLF? It's like talking to a brick wall, only with less intelligence! The only thing you bring is the same three, tired arguments that we've discussed over and over again, and massive amounts of insult.
Why you think it makes us cowards that we are tired of listening to you, like a broken record, I don't know, but it most certainly is not the case.
However, like always, now that i've told you, you'll ignore me and continue believing what you want, anyway, because reality has never been that important to you, has it? kind of like when i agreed with you three posts down that 40 days was a little quick to condemn Obama and you replied to me by making fun of me for condemning Obama after only 40 days.
You are an idiot, with very low reading comprehension skill, regurgitating the three arguments you can remember after reading them off of some liberal blog site (ie, someone else's ideas) over and over again, intermixed with insult and personal attack.
What are you surprised that we want you gone?
You want me gone because your parents are feeling the effects of the ideology you subscribe to and you got pissed that I mentioned it.
Don't blame your guilt on me.
Had we not pursued the greed culture of conservatism, many people, concluding your parents, wouldn't be suffering right now.
You people always see the opposition as rude and nasty but must not possess mirrors. You are bitter, nasty, negative and hope for nothing but failure since your ideas have FAILED so miserably.
We just ended a 30 year period of conservative dominance that will damage you and all those close to you.
Okay, you wanted debate, here goes:
You want me gone because your parents are feeling the effects of the ideology you subscribe to and you got pissed that I mentioned it.
Your attempt to ascribe personal motives when you don’t know shit aside, I was mad because you were gleefully reporting to me that you were glad that my parents “got what they deserved”. That is a bit more than “mentioning it” as you claim you did. Agreed?
Which brings me to the next lie in the same sentence:
feeling the effects of the ideology you subscribe to
This problem was brought about by liberal policies, not by any supposed ideology that I subscribe to. You have not yet proven one tiny iota that this was caused by anything other than a push by liberals to put people into mortgages that should not have been into mortgages. You’ve argued that it was greedy house flippers. I’ve agreed that they were certainly complicit, but that the entire problem was rooted in the liberal push for more “diversity” in home ownership. The opportunity would not have existed for these “greedy” house flippers if your liberal scum heroes hadn’t created the opportunity in the first place. You’ve also argued that the repealment of Glass-Steagal was the reason, which I have shown was not the reason, but was merely a contributing factor in the ability for the banks to hide the problem, by securitizing the bad debt. Glass-Steagal did nothing to create the problem, it would exist with or without it’s repealment. All it did was allow the bankers to hide it for a bit longer.
Had we not pursued the greed culture of conservatism, many people, concluding your parents, wouldn't be suffering right now.
It is beyond me how you keep claiming that making risky, stupid investments is a conservative ideology. What, exactly, does the word conservative mean?
This was not a conservative problem. It was an AMERICAN problem. We got too opulent for our own good. Proof that it isn’t a conservative problem is that liberals are losing houses because of dub-prime defaults at the same, or bigger, rate than conservatives. You’re claim here is fallacious and all washed up, HLF, but I’ve told you that before, haven’t I?
You people always see the opposition as rude and nasty but must not possess mirrors. You are bitter, nasty, negative and hope for nothing but failure since your ideas have FAILED so miserably.
You really have no handle on reality, do you? Have you read the posts that you put on here? The sheer, unabashed vitriol that you have posted? You accusing us of being rude and nasty is like the pot calling the kettle black, pal. You want the level of discourse to be higher than it is, then you lead the way. Between you and me, you were the one that started the ugliness. I was nice to you for months, until you started tap-dancing with glee and told me that my parents deserved to lose their nest egg because they believed in a different political ideology than you do.
I will reiterate that it was not the ideology of conservatism that caused this problem, no matter what spin on reality that you want to put on it.
We just ended a 30 year period of conservative dominance that will damage you and all those close to you.
I don’t even know why I’m doing this. After everything I posted above, in my previous post, about you needing to come up with something new, you’ve SIMPLY REGURGITATED THE SAME, TIRED, WORN-OUT, BULLSHIT, AND TOTALLY WRONG LINES THAT YOU ALWAYS DO.
You’re mental capacity must be severly limited if all you can come up with are the same three arguments, over and over again, no matter how many times we show you how wrong you are.
And with that, I’m done with you. I’ll go talk to the brick wall in my basement instead. It has more intelligence and a better grip on reality.
I have posted articles pointing out that "poor people getting mortgages forced on the banks by liberalism" is wrong. I've asked the question:
If banks were "forced" to make those loans, why did PRIVATE firms like Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG and Lehman Bros buy them? So they could die? Get a clue, bud.
Glass Steagall was implemented in the 1930s precisely because of this same situation occurring in the 1920s when banks engaged in bad financial dealings with investors. After the repeal it happened again and that's where we are now.
I have posted articles showing you how the bush administration ignored the warnings. I have pointed out that the debt doubled under bush and the republican Congress. I have pointed out that liberals have had no power since the 60s.
The conservative revolution of tax-cutting and deregulation took us down.
That's why they are out of power now.
You have not backed up your assertions with anything concrete except statements that my sources are wrong.
Keep believing in your precious conservatism and you too will be in dire straits.
If banks were "forced" to make those loans, why did PRIVATE firms like Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG and Lehman Bros buy them?
Because they were bundled up and hidden in securities. I've already answered that question. Glass Steagal repeal did not cause the problem. You have more or less admitted that in your post. All it did was allow the banks making these super risky loans to hide what they did by securitizing the bad debt.
I repeat, Glass Steagal did not cause this problem. It just gave the asses that got us into it a way to hide it for a little longer.
I have posted articles showing you how the bush administration ignored the warnings.
I never argued that they didn't? What I did say was that 7 republican senators DID get together and try to force congress to do something about the problem, but congress was controlled by democrats at the time, and guess what happened? Nothing. Liberals did just as much nothing about it as the republicans did, pal. Admit it. They were given the chance and did nothing, too, so don't say it was just one side or the other. Both sides are culpable in this mess.
I have pointed out that the debt doubled under bush and the republican Congress.
I never argued that point either, but I HAVE pointed out to you that Bush and his administration deviated from conservative principals to do so. Bush is no more a conservative than Bill Clinton was. You keep lumping republican and conservative into the same category, and it simply isn't true, and you know it. To say that massive spending, huge growth of government, intrusions into private affairs, and so forth, as Bush did during his presidency is CONSERVATISM, well, if you believe that, i simply cannot help you.
Conservatism stands in complete opposite of everything that Bush and his lackeys stand for.
I have pointed out that liberals have had no power since the 60s.
And that is simply a lie that we have proven false many times, so move on.
You have not backed up your assertions with anything concrete except statements that my sources are wrong
Oh, but I have. If you actually read what I've written above, and in almost every one of my previous posts.
I'll admit, i did get a little lazy on the one response where I discredited the sources. However, i've approached the subject many times since, twice in this thread alone...
Basically, you are wrong. The repealment of Glass-Steagal did not...
DID. NOT.
...cause banks to make huge amounts of highly risky loans. I'm not even sure you are foolish enough to argue that point. Or are you?
And let's face it. it was the huge amount of highly risky loans being offered, that were creating an artificial demand for housing due to the highly available credit, that were at the root of this problem. Glass Steagal repealment only created a situation where the loans that had gone bad could be hidden for a while longer.
Or are you really trying to argue that the repeal of Glass Steagal created the highly risky loan practices that caused this mess?
And stop trying to say that I am blaming it all on the poor people. I never said that. I am blaming on EVERYONE, poor and rich alike, who used highly risky loans to buy a house that they couldn't afford, and then bet on the come that they would be able to sell when it came due. Financial and social status has nothing to do with it. Stupidity does.
Please respond to what I've wwritten like you did last time. I appreciate the civil discourse. it is actually kind of fun.
Geezus christ, where to begin?
Because they were bundled up and hidden in securities.
The investment firms were the ones buying the loans to bundle. Banks did not bundle. That assertion alone costs you most of the intelligence points.
What I did say was that 7 republican senators DID get together and try to force congress to do something about the problem, but congress was controlled by democrats at the time, and guess what happened? Nothing.
The period when concerns were raised over Fannie & Freddie (though they were not the cause of the mess, they were a symptom) was 2005. Democrats did not control shit then. More points lost.
And who stopped regulation of F&F anyway? REPUBLICANS:
Freddie Mac Paid GOP Firm to Stop Regulation
AP IMPACT: How Freddie Mac halted regulatory drive
Internal Freddie Mac budget records show $11.7 million was paid to 52 outside lobbyists and consultants in 2006. Power brokers such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were recruited with six-figure contracts. Freddie Mac paid the following amounts to the firms of former Republican lawmakers or ex-GOP staffers in 2006:
You:
Liberals did just as much nothing about it as the republicans did, pal. Admit it. They were given the chance and did nothing, too, so don't say it was just one side or the other. Both sides are culpable in this mess.
There were no liberals with power. Republicans ran Congress and the White House.
Bush and his administration deviated from conservative principals to do so. Bush is no more a conservative than Bill Clinton was.
Of course. When conservatives fail (and they always do) they weren't "real" conservatives. Old trick. At one time Reagan got accused of not being a "real" conservative.
The repealment of Glass-Steagal did not...
DID. NOT.
...cause banks to make huge amounts of highly risky loans.
No, it allowed them to. Wall Street enocuraged it.
Before the repeal, a much smaller fraction of loans were sold. Banks who originated loans had a vested interest in the loans not being too risky. After repeal, the risk was passed to Wall Street who had an insatiable hunger for the loans they were bundling, giving fraudulent high ratings to and selling.
The repeal played a HUGE part in this. Enormous. That's why it was created in the 1930s. To keep banks from gambling with depositors money. Now we get to bail out the banks, the investment houses (the ones that aren't dead) and soon, the FDIC who was forced to cover the deposits the banks pissed away on porn while they were in bed with Wall Street.
All of it made possible by a deregulatory environment promoted by free-market capitalism, the religion of the political conservatives.
They set the policy agenda for 28 years, held the reins for most of that time and destroyed the country.
Post a Comment