Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Not this b.s. again. No one forced the banks to lend and no one forced idiots to take on mortgages they couldn't afford. This was the case of too many lenders wanting to get rich and too many Joe Schmoes trying to buy a house they had no business buying. Never mind that the housing collapse was already well in motion, so I see no reason to hash this one over and over...

banks are run (mostly) by intelligent people. would these people really want to own this many homes in 2010? they had to know when they were giving out loans that the kids getting the $ had a high % of not being able to follow through on the promises on the note.

there's blame that goes the other way to be sure but fannie, freddie and countrywide were the two most prominent movers here.

from what I've read thusfar these banks were basically promised a bailout (if it would come to that and it did) at our expense so we the people were effed over twice really. the people that were gullible or naive enough to believe they could afford homes above their means, and the people who then had to bail them and the banks out.

 

[Slap Shot]

Most of the loans that failed came from private lenders, promisted bailout or not. But more pertient to my original response, this downhill trend was well in place before Obama took the White House.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Not this b.s. again. No one forced the banks to lend and no one forced idiots to take on mortgages they couldn't afford. This was the case of too many lenders wanting to get rich and too many Joe Schmoes trying to buy a house they had no business buying. Never mind that the housing collapse was already well in motion, so I see no reason to hash this one over and over...

the banking collapse and the housing collapse are only co-incident in that the housing issue made the banks go wobbly which then back-ended onto the housing situation.

Housing would have likely faltered with or without the derivative and CDO nonsense... but the CDO nonsense wouldn't have happened without some tacit believe that the government would be forced to save them.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Relax, I was just asking for clarification. Lots of people say deficit when they mean debt, and say debt when they mean budget deficit. And then there's the balance of payments deficit . . . it pays to be specific.

So . . . the unemployment rate was 8.5% in 1/09. About 18 months later (6/10), it had risen a point to 9.6%.

Not good. But consider the 18 months prior to 1/09. In 6/07, unemployment was 4.7%. And we haven't even factored in the lag between when someone takes office and when their policies can really be expected to take effect. I'd say we're well into that territory now, but we weren't yet in 1/09. So if you're ****ed about unemployment, you're barking up the wrong tree. You'll get your chance when Obama's up for reelection, and if unemployment is still where it is now, I'll probably join you.

Likewise, the debt increased 213% over Bush's 8 budgets. Obama is off to a roaring start, obviously. He's at 8% debt growth through the first 7 months of his first budget. That may balloon to 400%. Or it might not. Economic forecasts are funny things. I'd use them if they say what I want, but I don't know how much I actually believe them. You can trust them if you want, but I'm going to rule them inadmissible as evidence.

So that's unemployment. And the debt.

Obama nationalized the auto industry? That's the sort of stupid rhetoric that'll kill a debate before it even starts.

There were bailouts, sure. But nowhere close to the level that would be necessary to justify that sort of rhetoric.

Banks? You're aware that Bush signed TARP into law, right?

So there's health care. Which most certainly was not taken over. Again, if you want to take the time to make a reasoned criticism, I'll listen. But I'm not going to waste my time responding to empty rhetoric.

I'd say I called the score about right.

I'll agree with you on Bush. He wasn't conservative, and generally was ineffective from where I stand. I blame him for giving us Obama, but years from now I may give him credit for creating the climate for a solid and smart conservative party which doesn't necessarily need to be the GOP.

Obama's deficit numbers aren't too difficult to argue right now, the stats show they're 3 to 4x Bush right now and the astronomical numbers for 2011 and beyond are considering the addition of a mammoth entitlement program called healthcare and we all know projected costs will be surpassed by real costs.

You point about Jan 09 I will concede.

where we seem to majorly disagree is on definitions. I consider the $ given to GM and Chrysler (or more accurately their unions) as a government takeover of the companies. yes, the idea is it won't be forever but when does government (and especially with guys who believe in socialism (another point I'm guessing we disagree on) i.e. vast government control) actually lend money and then remove their tentacles when it's paid back? the feds own these two companies until or unless they no longer choose the CEO's, no longer are owed money, and have the same interest that they had in 2008 which is nothing

this is uncharted territory in the U.S. and I'd argue that it's against the principles and ideas set forth by our founders.

TARP - well, yes I do know Bush signed that into law. and I disagreed with it then as I still do now. he should have let AIG fail and several others fail. they could've spun off their successful companies, E&O insurance and the like and the country would be healthier for it. we shouldn't be propping up bad business models. if you're arguing this helps add to Obama's deficit fine, but you can't blame the failed stimulus on Bush. You can't blame Bush for the fact the Federal Government wants to spend 800million on a high-speed rail line from Milwaukee to Madison that wisconsinites don't want. where do they get the temerity to send officials out here to basically tell us we're getting this whether we want it or not? again, that smacks of a certain word I use often with Obama.


Healthcare. First and foremost it's a matter of definitions again. I don't want a mandate from the government to buy anything including healthcare. when a gov't steps that far into my life it's control. If they have the right to force me to purchase healthcare or put me in jail or fine me I'd define that how I see it. takeover, socialism whatever.

Second, I don't believe in "free" healthcare or that healthcare is a "right". Which is what Obama believes and many who voted for him believe. we disagree 1000% on that. it stems from collectivism, and it takes a village mentality which I wholeheartedly and vehemently disagree with.

Third, I don't believe in creating bogeyman. In this case insurance companies. they're in business for $ just like everyone else. so what?

Fourth, see the Avastin debate and several others brewing. rationing anyone?

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Most of the loans that failed came from private lenders, promisted bailout or not. But more pertient to my original response, this downhill trend was well in place before Obama took the White House.

if it comes across like I'm blaming Obama for the housing mess that's not what I mean. I blame C. Dodd, B. Frank, and everyone else (including Bush and Clinton apparently) who put forth the notuion that everyone "needs" to own a home. or the ownership society or whatever they were using as a buzzword back then.

 

[Jon]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Back a few presidents ago. Say what you want about Howie Carr, but this is a great quote...

I hope Tom Brady kicks him continuously in the knee while Whitey Bulgar eats his skull?

In case you were asking.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Background_and_history

Quoting Wikipedia? That's a double fail.

I'll give you a hint - the tea party movement only began LAST YEAR. The only thing it has in common with something Ron Paul did during the 2008 election cycle might be the name.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Many thousands of people are being gassed with mustard gas and Sarin all over? That's one of the more ridiculous things I've seen posted around here lately.

The Halabja gas attack is recognized as the largest chemical weapons attack on a civilian population in history. Try again.

I forgot. Guns are ok, but chemical weapons aren't. The whole 2nd Amendment thing. My bad.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Not this b.s. again. No one forced the banks to lend and no one forced idiots to take on mortgages they couldn't afford. This was the case of too many lenders wanting to get rich and too many Joe Schmoes trying to buy a house they had no business buying. Never mind that the housing collapse was already well in motion, so I see no reason to hash this one over and over...

the banks WERE forced to lend.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

the banks WERE forced to lend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

and how do you fix redlining...

well, if the government is going to take the tact that loaning to fewer minorities is against the law then you have to take the safe tact and go the other way... because you can't prove your polcies are colorblind (look at one of their examples from 2007 involving Sally Mae... i can't believe that they have a race based policy) you then have to show that the data is colorblind... how do you do that... lending to riskier people.... especially when you have people such as Deval Patrick (Bill Clinton administration) hanging over you who want to make an example.

See, people never think about the consequences of things playing out in meatspace... to reduce redlining you will have to lend to riskier people... so while nobody forces them to lend, if you want to lend you'll have to concern yourself with redlining and you don't want to have the hammer fall on you even if you did nothing wrong. Afterall, they'll just blame the insitutional racism of the loan adjudicators/loan officers... still your fault, still your fine.

That being said, these guys still didn't invent the CDO which caused our collapse. Of course they did invent some of these weird mortgage plans because they assumed moronic things... so they did bring that much on themselves.

 

[Slap Shot]

the banks WERE forced to lend.

You make Palin look bright.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

You make Palin look bright.

not hard.

seriously go back (its too hot and I don't care and I don't want to look it up) and find some of the Fannie and Freddie BS that went on with Dodd and Frank and community reinvestment banking laws.

1977 Community Reinvestment Act. and all the times Congress tinkered with it for their own gain.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Tell you what, go start a bank and only lend to people who make above average income, have above average FICO scores and have the most collateral. See any problems on the horizon?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...mployee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html

Keep repeating to yourself: "There is no liberal bias in the elite media, there is no liberal bias in the elite media, there is no liberal bias in the elite media." Trouble is, year after year after year, these ratios are revealed in surveys, polls and studies. The question becomes, how can anyone deny it with a straight face?

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

NYT editorial

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29sun1.html?hp


I guess I'm continually surprised by people who think you can spend your way out of a debt, or that raising taxes (letting tax cuts expire) will somehow boost the economy. if they think people aren't spending money now, just wait until our taxes get hiked again.

wow.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...mployee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html

Keep repeating to yourself: "There is no liberal bias in the elite media, there is no liberal bias in the elite media, there is no liberal bias in the elite media." Trouble is, year after year after year, these ratios are revealed in surveys, polls and studies. The question becomes, how can anyone deny it with a straight face?

are you one of those white people at Glenn Beck's rally yesterday? Everybody knows white people go to Glenn Beck rallies.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

NYT editorial

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29sun1.html?hp


I guess I'm continually surprised by people who think you can spend your way out of a debt, or that raising taxes (letting tax cuts expire) will somehow boost the economy. if they think people aren't spending money now, just wait until our taxes get hiked again.

wow.

These idiots don't even know the way out of the paper bag is to initialize things that make the country efficient and get the hell out of the way of the capital re-allocation that's going on.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

These idiots don't even know the way out of the paper bag is to initialize things that make the country efficient and get the hell out of the way of the capital re-allocation that's going on.

yeah, but they sure do KNOW how to come up with new slogans or names for dissenters


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/hating-your-countrymen-is-the-new-patriotism-101750143.html

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

NYT editorial

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29sun1.html?hp


I guess I'm continually surprised by people who think you can spend your way out of a debt, or that raising taxes (letting tax cuts expire) will somehow boost the economy. if they think people aren't spending money now, just wait until our taxes get hiked again.

wow.

One of the quickest ways to get people spending again (who aren't spending now) would have been to extend unemployment benefits, no?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

NYT editorial

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29sun1.html?hp


I guess I'm continually surprised by people who think you can spend your way out of a debt, or that raising taxes (letting tax cuts expire) will somehow boost the economy. if they think people aren't spending money now, just wait until our taxes get hiked again.

wow.

An analysis sure to be repeated endlessly as this battle is joined: "A man making x-thousands of dollars a year will GET so much as a result of the tax cut. While a man making just x-thousand will only GET this much." This analysis conveniently overlooks the fact that these two citizens aren't "getting" anything, they are merely have less of that which is theirs confiscated by the government. You see, it all belongs to Washington, every last penny. And any residual you can chalk up to government largesse.