America's Useful Idiots

[Foxfyre]

A free market that nearly put us into the Second Great Republican Depression. Far from being heavy handed, or destructive, the President's policies have not gone far enough in curbing the insane practices on Wall Street that created the economic debacle that we are still pulling out of.

Nonsense.

It's curious that you breeze right over dunderheaded governmental policies and the reckless practices of the quasi-private companies of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, for example, which were at the epicenter of the housing-credit crash that caused the current recession or profoundly exacerbated a cyclical economic downturn: leftist politicians bullying the private sector to relax sound lending practices, sell and bundle high-risk mortgage products.

(And by the way, the current economy is not the worst since the Great Depression. That prize goes to the Nixon-Carter years of stagflation and stupid, governmentally imposed price controls.)

Then the Obama Administration, after incessantly complaining about the debt that the Bush Administration piled up, spent trillions more, further exacerbating our economic woes.

But of course anyone with an IQ above that of a gnat understood all along that Obama never intended to arrest out-of-control government spending. On the contrary, he knew along that he would drive the debt to its present level and beyond.

"...the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which was appointed by Congress to investigate the causes of the crash.1 Contrary to Wallison, the nine other members of the commission, including three others appointed by Republicans, concluded that Fannie and Freddie were not the main causes of the crisis."

Did Fannie Cause the Disaster? by Jeff Madrick and Frank Partnoy | The New York Review of Books

After the Bush Crash the spending was necessary. Cutting and deducing the budget would have brought on a depression.

You really don't read most of the stuff you comment on, do you? (Referring back to the partisans and ideologues going with the particular schtick of their leaders.)

From the link you provided, which by the way explicitly rebuts the point you are making here:

"The book boldly and passionately asserts that the risk-taking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was a major element in causing the housing bubble. In particular, the authors blame the crisis on the goals set by the Clinton administration in the early 1990s to make lending “affordable” to more middle- and low-income home buyers. These goals were raised several times over the next dozen years so as to include more people, with the result that loans became cheaper. The authors write, “The homeownership drive helped to plunge the nation into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.” They add, “How Clinton’s calamitous Homeownership Strategy was born, nurtured, and finally came to blow up the American economy is a story of greed and good intentions, corporate corruption and government support.”

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Nonsense.

It's curious that you breeze right over dunderheaded governmental policies and the reckless practices of the quasi-private companies of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, for example, which were at the epicenter of the housing-credit crash that caused the current recession or profoundly exacerbated a cyclical economic downturn: leftist politicians bullying the private sector to relax sound lending practices, sell and bundle high-risk mortgage products.

(And by the way, the current economy is not the worst since the Great Depression. That prize goes to the Nixon-Carter years of stagflation and stupid, governmentally imposed price controls.)

Then the Obama Administration, after incessantly complaining about the debt that the Bush Administration piled up, spent trillions more, further exacerbating our economic woes.

But of course anyone with an IQ above that of a gnat understood all along that Obama never intended to arrest out-of-control government spending. On the contrary, he knew along that he would drive the debt to its present level and beyond.

"...the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which was appointed by Congress to investigate the causes of the crash.1 Contrary to Wallison, the nine other members of the commission, including three others appointed by Republicans, concluded that Fannie and Freddie were not the main causes of the crisis."

Did Fannie Cause the Disaster? by Jeff Madrick and Frank Partnoy | The New York Review of Books

After the Bush Crash the spending was necessary. Cutting and deducing the budget would have brought on a depression.

You really don't read most of the stuff you comment on, do you? (Referring back to the partisans and ideologues going with the particular schtick of their leaders.)

From the link you provided, which by the way explicitly rebuts the point you are making here:

"The book boldly and passionately asserts that the risk-taking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was a major element in causing the housing bubble. In particular, the authors blame the crisis on the goals set by the Clinton administration in the early 1990s to make lending “affordable” to more middle- and low-income home buyers. These goals were raised several times over the next dozen years so as to include more people, with the result that loans became cheaper. The authors write, “The homeownership drive helped to plunge the nation into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.” They add, “How Clinton’s calamitous Homeownership Strategy was born, nurtured, and finally came to blow up the American economy is a story of greed and good intentions, corporate corruption and government support.”

The book does, not necessarily the congressional commission.

Nevertheless, the wont for self-delusion among leftists is frightening, shocking . . . unremitting. Thus far we've seen the conflation of distinct worldviews, the muddling of the point (equivocation and evasion), disinformation and outright lies.

But Blindboo did not carefully read what I wrote:

. . . dunderheaded governmental policies and the reckless practices of the quasi-private companies of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, for example, which were at the epicenter of the housing-credit crash that caused the current recession or profoundly exacerbated a cyclical economic downturn. . . .​

At no point did I state that these things were the sole causes. As one who is well-read on the matter, I'm well aware of the other factors. I'm also aware of the fact that the economy was cooling off when the brewing crisis erupted.

Ultimately, the most disheartening challenges facing this nation are not its daunting fiscal and economic woes, but the growing cancer of self-imposed ignorance and bootlick subservience to the statist rhetoric of class warfare behind the policies that engendered them.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nonsense.

It's curious that you breeze right over dunderheaded governmental policies and the reckless practices of the quasi-private companies of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, for example, which were at the epicenter of the housing-credit crash that caused the current recession or profoundly exacerbated a cyclical economic downturn: leftist politicians bullying the private sector to relax sound lending practices, sell and bundle high-risk mortgage products.

(And by the way, the current economy is not the worst since the Great Depression. That prize goes to the Nixon-Carter years of stagflation and stupid, governmentally imposed price controls.)

Then the Obama Administration, after incessantly complaining about the debt that the Bush Administration piled up, spent trillions more, further exacerbating our economic woes.

But of course anyone with an IQ above that of a gnat understood all along that Obama never intended to arrest out-of-control government spending. On the contrary, he knew along that he would drive the debt to its present level and beyond.

"...the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which was appointed by Congress to investigate the causes of the crash.1 Contrary to Wallison, the nine other members of the commission, including three others appointed by Republicans, concluded that Fannie and Freddie were not the main causes of the crisis."

Did Fannie Cause the Disaster? by Jeff Madrick and Frank Partnoy | The New York Review of Books

After the Bush Crash the spending was necessary. Cutting and deducing the budget would have brought on a depression.

You really don't read most of the stuff you comment on, do you? (Referring back to the partisans and ideologues going with the particular schtick of their leaders.)

From the link you provided, which by the way explicitly rebuts the point you are making here:

"The book boldly and passionately asserts that the risk-taking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was a major element in causing the housing bubble. In particular, the authors blame the crisis on the goals set by the Clinton administration in the early 1990s to make lending “affordable” to more middle- and low-income home buyers. These goals were raised several times over the next dozen years so as to include more people, with the result that loans became cheaper. The authors write, “The homeownership drive helped to plunge the nation into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.” They add, “How Clinton’s calamitous Homeownership Strategy was born, nurtured, and finally came to blow up the American economy is a story of greed and good intentions, corporate corruption and government support.”

Pssst Foxfyre, the article is a review of that book....and not a good one.

But the book’s unjustified thesis that Fannie and Freddie were major causes of the financial crisis is being used by politicians and pundits to soften criticism of private business and by lobbyists and others who would water down the new regulations passed by Congress under the Dodd-Frank Act. The book is also being exploited by those who believe the federal government should have little if anything to do with support for the mortgage market, a view we find unfounded.

I have no advice for you.

 

[BlindBoo]

"...the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which was appointed by Congress to investigate the causes of the crash.1 Contrary to Wallison, the nine other members of the commission, including three others appointed by Republicans, concluded that Fannie and Freddie were not the main causes of the crisis."

Did Fannie Cause the Disaster? by Jeff Madrick and Frank Partnoy | The New York Review of Books

After the Bush Crash the spending was necessary. Cutting and deducing the budget would have brought on a depression.

You really don't read most of the stuff you comment on, do you? (Referring back to the partisans and ideologues going with the particular schtick of their leaders.)

From the link you provided, which by the way explicitly rebuts the point you are making here:

"The book boldly and passionately asserts that the risk-taking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was a major element in causing the housing bubble. In particular, the authors blame the crisis on the goals set by the Clinton administration in the early 1990s to make lending “affordable” to more middle- and low-income home buyers. These goals were raised several times over the next dozen years so as to include more people, with the result that loans became cheaper. The authors write, “The homeownership drive helped to plunge the nation into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.” They add, “How Clinton’s calamitous Homeownership Strategy was born, nurtured, and finally came to blow up the American economy is a story of greed and good intentions, corporate corruption and government support.”

The book does, not necessarily the congressional commission.

Nevertheless, the wont for self-delusion among leftists is frightening, shocking . . . unremitting. Thus far we've seen the conflation of distinct worldviews, the muddling of the point (equivocation and evasion), disinformation and outright lies.

But Blindboo did not carefully read what I wrote:

. . . dunderheaded governmental policies and the reckless practices of the quasi-private companies of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, for example, which were at the epicenter of the housing-credit crash that caused the current recession or profoundly exacerbated a cyclical economic downturn. . . .​

At no point did I state that these things were the sole causes. As one who is well-read on the matter, I'm well aware of the other factors. I'm also aware of the fact that the economy was cooling off when the brewing crisis erupted.

Ultimately, the most disheartening challenge facing this nation are not its daunting fiscal and economic woes, but the growing cancer of self-imposed ignorance and bootlick subservience to the statist rhetoric of class warfare behind the policies that engendered them.

First of all the article was a critical and not too kind review of that book.

Speaking of self-delusion......

It is kind of funny to be accused of not reading it by posters who so obviously didn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

"...the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which was appointed by Congress to investigate the causes of the crash.1 Contrary to Wallison, the nine other members of the commission, including three others appointed by Republicans, concluded that Fannie and Freddie were not the main causes of the crisis."

Did Fannie Cause the Disaster? by Jeff Madrick and Frank Partnoy | The New York Review of Books

After the Bush Crash the spending was necessary. Cutting and deducing the budget would have brought on a depression.

You really don't read most of the stuff you comment on, do you? (Referring back to the partisans and ideologues going with the particular schtick of their leaders.)

From the link you provided, which by the way explicitly rebuts the point you are making here:

"The book boldly and passionately asserts that the risk-taking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was a major element in causing the housing bubble. In particular, the authors blame the crisis on the goals set by the Clinton administration in the early 1990s to make lending “affordable” to more middle- and low-income home buyers. These goals were raised several times over the next dozen years so as to include more people, with the result that loans became cheaper. The authors write, “The homeownership drive helped to plunge the nation into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.” They add, “How Clinton’s calamitous Homeownership Strategy was born, nurtured, and finally came to blow up the American economy is a story of greed and good intentions, corporate corruption and government support.”

Pssst Foxfyre, the article is a review of that book....and not a good one.

But the book’s unjustified thesis that Fannie and Freddie were major causes of the financial crisis is being used by politicians and pundits to soften criticism of private business and by lobbyists and others who would water down the new regulations passed by Congress under the Dodd-Frank Act. The book is also being exploited by those who believe the federal government should have little if anything to do with support for the mortgage market, a view we find unfounded.

I have no advice for you.

Why would you post a link to a scholarly book review that rebutted your point of view? Why not post a link to a credible opinion that supports your point of view?

The fact is, the housing bubble was created by pushing mortages on people who had no track of paying their bills or who, with little or no personal investment in the property, would not be able and/or willing to find ways to keep up the payments in an economic downturn. Fannie and Freddie were a large component of that happening, as well as instrumental in tactics to hide the growing danger, and it mushroomed from there. As the unnatural sales boosted property prices, other financial entities jumped on the band wagon to capitalize on the short term artificial boom and windfall.

When the inevitable economic downturn happened, and the defaults began mounting up, it made the whole house of cards collapse.

So the career politicians use the useful idiots who want to blame corporate America, greed, and graft for problem rather than government. They keep them pointed to the wrong issues in order to enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes. If they allowed Fannie and Freddie or their own ulterior motives to be important factors, then they lose much of their power to increase their own circumstances.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

An unfettered lifestyle as well as being part of the in-crowd is of paramount importance to not only the vast majority of those in the entertainment and media arena, but also many in the general population.

Read more: Articles: America's Useful Idiots

the core reason why they are useful idiots....

 

[Foxfyre]

Having reread that book report, I do wish to apologize to Blind Boo though. I came down too hard on 'him"?' for not reading the book report. He obviously did and is right that it is critical of the book it was reporting on.

The book report, however, spent way more time writing its own screed blaming corporate America than it did critiquing the book. And it dismissed the idea that without Fannie and Freddie's role in the dynamics of the whole thing,Wall Street/corporate America likely would never have become involved at least to the extent that it did. It avoided even looking at the role that government policy had in promoting the bubble in the first place.

In short, the book report appears to be the work of 'useful idiots' who keep uncomfortable truths out of the public consciousness and discussion and divert the focus to some assigned villain or villains.

 

[BlindBoo]

Having reread that book report, I do wish to apologize to Blind Boo though. I came down too hard on 'him"?' for not reading the book report. He obviously did and is right that it is critical of the book it was reporting on.

The book report, however, spent way more time writing its own screed blaming corporate America than it did critiquing the book. And it dismissed the idea that without Fannie and Freddie's role in the dynamics of the whole thing,Wall Street/corporate America likely would never have become involved at least to the extent that it did. It avoided even looking at the role that government policy had in promoting the bubble in the first place.

In short, the book report appears to be the work of 'useful idiots' who keep uncomfortable truths out of the public consciousness and discussion and divert the focus to some assigned villain or villains.

Well thanks for admitting you were mistaken. A refreshing change.

 

[Foxfyre]

Having reread that book report, I do wish to apologize to Blind Boo though. I came down too hard on 'him"?' for not reading the book report. He obviously did and is right that it is critical of the book it was reporting on.

The book report, however, spent way more time writing its own screed blaming corporate America than it did critiquing the book. And it dismissed the idea that without Fannie and Freddie's role in the dynamics of the whole thing,Wall Street/corporate America likely would never have become involved at least to the extent that it did. It avoided even looking at the role that government policy had in promoting the bubble in the first place.

In short, the book report appears to be the work of 'useful idiots' who keep uncomfortable truths out of the public consciousness and discussion and divert the focus to some assigned villain or villains.

Well thanks for admitting you were mistaken. A refreshing change.

LOL. I have as much ego as the next person, and you sometimes have to work at it to prove me wrong. But when you do, I will (at least almost) always admit that I'm wrong.

Doncha just hate that terrible moment in in a passionate argument that you realize you're wrong?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You really don't read most of the stuff you comment on, do you? (Referring back to the partisans and ideologues going with the particular schtick of their leaders.)

From the link you provided, which by the way explicitly rebuts the point you are making here:

"The book boldly and passionately asserts that the risk-taking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was a major element in causing the housing bubble. In particular, the authors blame the crisis on the goals set by the Clinton administration in the early 1990s to make lending “affordable” to more middle- and low-income home buyers. These goals were raised several times over the next dozen years so as to include more people, with the result that loans became cheaper. The authors write, “The homeownership drive helped to plunge the nation into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.” They add, “How Clinton’s calamitous Homeownership Strategy was born, nurtured, and finally came to blow up the American economy is a story of greed and good intentions, corporate corruption and government support.”

The book does, not necessarily the congressional commission.

Nevertheless, the wont for self-delusion among leftists is frightening, shocking . . . unremitting. Thus far we've seen the conflation of distinct worldviews, the muddling of the point (equivocation and evasion), disinformation and outright lies.

But Blindboo did not carefully read what I wrote:

. . . dunderheaded governmental policies and the reckless practices of the quasi-private companies of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, for example, which were at the epicenter of the housing-credit crash that caused the current recession or profoundly exacerbated a cyclical economic downturn. . . .​

At no point did I state that these things were the sole causes. As one who is well-read on the matter, I'm well aware of the other factors. I'm also aware of the fact that the economy was cooling off when the brewing crisis erupted.

Ultimately, the most disheartening challenge facing this nation are not its daunting fiscal and economic woes, but the growing cancer of self-imposed ignorance and bootlick subservience to the statist rhetoric of class warfare behind the policies that engendered them.

First of all the article was a critical and not too kind review of that book.

Speaking of self-delusion......

It is kind of funny to be accused of not reading it by posters who so obviously didn't.

Uh . . . Blindboo, I read your post and the book review. Indeed, I have read that very same review before. It's not new to me, and it does not accurately reflect the entirety of the commission's findings regarding the actions of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae either; for example, take this somewhat misleading or partially-informed assertion: "Even then, the GSEs' overall purchases and guarantees were much less risky than Wall Street's: their default rates were one fourth to one fifth of those of Wall Street and other private financial firms. . . ." (more on that later).

Once again, I did not put the entire blame on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Initially, I was responding to the notion that Wall Street or the inherent processes of capitalism were solely to blame, as if government oversight were some sort of panacea, free of blame or immune to corruption. That's nonsense too. The private sector already had tried and true policies in place coupled with certain federal requirements regarding cash reserves against exposure. Politicians, mostly leftists, encouraged the relaxation of these policies and allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, for example, to bundle and sell risky loans to other companies traded on Wall Street, one of the reasons, by the way, that the GSEs where not holding as many high-risk mortgages as Wall Street at the time of the bust. The former most indubitably contributed to the crisis . . . uh . . . that's why the Securities and Exchange Commission brought civil actions against their top executives.

Federal National Mortgage Association News - Company Information - The New York Times

My point is different and is not inconsistent with the debatable assertion that the GSEs were not the "main cause", a meaningless caveat, really, given the whole picture and the fact that they most certainly were at the epicenter of it all. Greed and irresponsibility on the part of both government officials/agencies and private companies were apparent.

 

[Foxfyre]

MDR is right that Fannie and Freddie were not the whole catalyst or problem, but they were an essential cog in the dynamics of it. It all started with very well intended motives in the Carter Administration continuing through the Reagan administration with little or no problem. But gradually the controls that were initially in place began to erode or loopholes were found, and then in the Clinton Administration some of them were removed. And the government began actively promoting people who couldn't afford houses under the old system to start buying houses. That continued into the Bush 43 Administration though the Administration was aware of the developing problem. President Bush advised Congress I think 19 (?) different times to do something about it. And Chris Dodd and Barney Frank thumbed their noses at him and kept assuring everybody that everything was okay.

Then when the bubble was really picking up steam by 2006, the GOP lost control of Congress and also the power to do anything about it. And the Democrats who were in power refused to do so.

And the rest is a nightmarish history that we are still living.

But going back to the useful idiots thesis, when the government does not wish to deal with something constructibvely, they can always get the useful idiots to believe that it is somebody else's fault. Our Fearless Leader is a master at that and has identified all his useful idiots and plays to them shamelessly.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Having reread that book report, I do wish to apologize to Blind Boo though. I came down too hard on 'him"?' for not reading the book report. He obviously did and is right that it is critical of the book it was reporting on.

The book report, however, spent way more time writing its own screed blaming corporate America than it did critiquing the book. And it dismissed the idea that without Fannie and Freddie's role in the dynamics of the whole thing,Wall Street/corporate America likely would never have become involved at least to the extent that it did. It avoided even looking at the role that government policy had in promoting the bubble in the first place.

In short, the book report appears to be the work of 'useful idiots' who keep uncomfortable truths out of the public consciousness and discussion and divert the focus to some assigned villain or villains.

Well thanks for admitting you were mistaken. A refreshing change.

LOL. I have as much ego as the next person, and you sometimes have to work at it to prove me wrong. But when you do, I will (at least almost) always admit that I'm wrong.

Doncha just hate that terrible moment in in a passionate argument that you realize you're wrong?

Nevertheless, you're not wrong to believe that GSEs were much to blame for the crisis; it's just that some of Morgenson-Rosner's assertions were shown to be inaccurate or exaggerated. The problem is more complex. Instead, I recommend Sowell's The Housing Boom and Bust, a more broadminded, better researched work on the matter, coupled with Taylor's [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Off-Track-Government-Interventions/dp/0817949712/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234423571&sr=8-1]Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis[/ame], which includes an analysis of the housing bust within the context of the larger economy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

After the Bush Crash the spending was necessary. Cutting and deducing the budget would have brought on a depression.

*Sigh*

"[T]he Bush Crash"?! First you rightly point out that the actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not necessarily the main cause or the only cause of the bust, then turn right around and make an equally naive statement, leaving me to believe that in addition to your misreading of my original point that you really don't know much about this at all. You simply quote mined.

The problems began in earnest during the Clinton Administration; the eventual bust simply occurred during Bush's. That's all. The causes were legion, got worse over a number of years and eventually boiled over.

Arguably, it was necessary to shore up a number of financial institutions. But you're a tad confused. Obama's subsequent Keynesian "stimulus" packages in the trillions had nothing to do with shoring up financial institutions. The overwhelming majority of that money, by design and intent, went to government bureaucracies at the state and local levels, producing very little to no stimulus in the private sector . . . just as conservatives predicted. The economy would have been a lot better off without them.

No, Sir! The right response after some of the initial bailouts would have included immediate tax cuts, on both incomes and corporations, the elimination of the redundant corporate gains tax, and regulatory and entitlement reforms. The economy would have come roaring back within a year or two at the most. Instead, it remains stagnant with nothing to show for the so-called stimulus spending.