Obama's Socialism Exposed

[Sallow]

You're conservative daffynitions are hilarious PC. Keep em comin'.

 

[MaggieMae]

"involvement", "radicalism", "nationalization", and OMG, "Socialism".
[Lions, Tigers and Bears, Oh my!]"

So, one should pay no attention to these terms, and, what..., behave as though they were 'freedom,' and 'liberty', and represented American values?

You sound like a child.
Probably a very nice person, but one who is afraid to confront the reality of what these words, or rather, the individuals to whom they correspond, suggest for our nation.

Did you miss the results in nations that succumbed to 'radicalism' and 'socialism'?
Here are a couple of other words that apply: 'murder,' 'slavery.'
Pick up a book, and stop learning you history from what you call the 'OTHER' news options, you know, the ones that neglected to inform you of the aspects of Barack Obama that you can learn from "Radical-in-Chief" by Stanley Kurtz...

now, now...put aside your fear of learning the truth.

Do you need a push? Consider this:
If the subject were as inocuous as you seem to imply, why did our President run and hide from it?
Why did Van Jones have to resign?
Why did he lie about barely knowing Bill Ayers- "just some guy in my neighborhood..."

Best of luck in your journey.

As usual, PC, you're only seeing with one eye. Stanley Kurtz is notorious for embellishing fiction to create his "facts." Take the time to Google the many pages dismissing his intended distortions, along with his latest.

Why Is Stanley Kurtz Calling Obama a Socialist? - Ta-Nehisi Coates - Politics - The Atlantic

Kurtz, if you're not familiar with his work, is a loyal soldier of the conservative movement. And for the last few years, he has devoted himself to exposing Obama's socialism and radical beliefs. As you can imagine, this is shoddy work. To wit: his definition of socialist is impossibly broad--encompassing everything from European social democrats to Rubinite neo-liberals--and his scant evidence comes from tenuous links and huge generalizations about Obama's motivations and drive. In Kurtz's narrative, Obama joined Jeremiah Wright's church out of Marxist solidarity and not the stated combination of professional obligation and spiritual need.

The truth, as we all know, is that Obama is a conventional American liberal, and like most conventional American liberals, Obama wants to account and compensate for the market's failures. The Affordable Care Act, financial reform--these aren't nefarious plots for socialist domination, they are attempts at reforming capitalism to save it.

And more about Obama's alleged "Socialism":
Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know. - washingtonpost.com

Silly Rabbit, Tricks are for Kids!

Mags, possibly you would like to comment on the following:
If the subject were as inocuous as you seem to imply, why did our President run and hide from it?
Why did Van Jones have to resign?
Why did he lie about barely knowing Bill Ayers- "just some guy in my neighborhood..."

Kurtz does an excellent job of putting the pieces together, connecting the dots, and producing a theory that not only holds water, but is predictive of the the kind of administration that the Obama presidency has revealed.

Of course, I'm not surprised that you guys on the left fail to be able to connect the same dots....I even predicted it in my 'Liberal Playbook:'
So, you get full credit for Rule #2, Rule 5e, and 6b.
Bravo!

2. Refuse to accept the statements of any opposing view, from individuals or media, unless reliably liberal.

5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
b. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
c. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
d. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
Learn phrases such as ‘it’s time to move on,” or ‘let’s put this behind us.”
e. This was started by a [conservative, republican, earlier] administration.
f. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say “I’m only interested in discourse.”
g. If and when totally busted, jam hands down into side pockets, gaze up at the sky, whistle softly, and amble off into the sunset.

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” of “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.


More proof? The tizzy that it throws you lefties into!

Tell me...and I know you to be honest, if misdirected,...do you think the election of '08 would have had the same outcome if the Fourth Estate had done the job they left to Stanley Kurtz?

Kind of telling, eh?

No, it isn't. Yes, I want proof, not another Beck-esque "Let's Play Connect The Dots And See if THIS Shit Will Stick" bullshit that, er, throws the far right into a tizzy.

As for Van Jones, he was driven to resign by the right wing noise machine, mainly Glenn Beck. His background as a "radical" at one time supporting equal rights for blacks had ZERO to do with his current job as an environmental specialist. Again, you cherry pick the information on him attempting to make it appear that Obama hired a known card-carrying Communist secretly plotting to take over the world. Gee, Commies and Muslims. Communism and Caliphates. I wonder how those dots connect.

The far right also went on a witch hunt regarding Bill Ayres. They made so much noise about that affiliation that it was obviously going to damage Obama's campaign (when all of this occurred), no matter ow luke warm the relationship was, or WHAT Obama said about it. Ayers was the one who had a radical background, not Obama. But that didn't matter one whit. OF COURSE Obama was afraid it would be effective, and OF COURSE he was going to distance himself at the outset. But when their past connection was finally revealed, it was too late for the gullible right (like yourself) to even accept the fact that any "friendship" didn't exist except in passing.

In spite of my spending waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more time than should be necessary this late in the game on those two individuals, I would ask why YOU seem to be obsessed with such men? Do you really believe that every politician, every person who becomes president has had lilly white pasts? Puleeze, woman. This is your basic problem: You do not live in the real world.

 

[MaggieMae]

Possibly you were pressed for time, and merely perused the OP...I admit it required a bit of thinking.

"you dont get to change a definition just to suit your purposes."

Here, let me help you to understand.

Were you a student of history, you would be aware of the original intentions of SDS and the other radicals of the '60's. You see, this knowledge is essential to begin to understand today's morass.
The origins are in the Port Huron meetings.

1. One member gave this prescription: “four-square against anti-Communism, eight-square against American-culture, twelve-square against sell-out unions, one hundred and twenty against an interpretation of the Cold War that saw it as a Soviet plot and identified American policy fondly.” Todd Gitlin, “The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage,” p. 109-110

2. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962. It sets forth an agenda for changing human nature, the nation, and the world. In it, one can hear the ignorance and arrogance so inherent in adolescents: the euphoria due to being convinced of their own wisdom, moral purity, and ability to change everything.

3. But, alas, Americans chose Reagan, over Stalin.
Once these radicals understood that Americans did not believe in this political direction, rather than give up, they altered their strategies to bring socialism from the bottom up, rather than the top down.
So, you see, it is not Kurtz, or myself, who changed the terminology, it was the radicals themselves.

Now, you can understand that, can't you? Certainly your comprehension can keep up with changes in reality.
One would hope.

Item 3 contradicts item 2. You seem to believe that the radical 60's continue to trend through the 2000's. Obviously they did not. How many "radicals" of the 60's (those who didn't make headlines) went on to become educated businessmen in pinstriped suits and wingtips? Plenty.

I am always pleased to help you with your history...

1.A few years after Port Huron, its organization’s offshoot and legitimate heir, the Weathermen, organized the Days of Rage riots in Chicago. At a subsequent “War Council,” Tom Hayden led the Weathermen in “a workout of karate jabs and kicks” for a “strenuous fifteen minutes” in preparation for armed struggle. Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties, “ p. 96

a. Port Huron’s professions of love and brotherhood turned to rage and attack when society would not accept ‘brotherhood’ on SDS’s terms. But when the country refused to second their emotions—when the country elected President Nixon in 1968 and again, by larger margins, in 1972—the SDS grew bitter and increasingly alienated from the cause of democratic reform.

b. SDS grew from 600 in 1963 to over 100,000 in 1968…but fell apart by 1969, finally many hostile factions, until there remained only a small group of Maoists. It is interesting to compare them to the disciplined and programmed ‘Old Left,’ the Communist Party.

2. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.

3. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51

a. O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist.

4. “[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.” Ibid p. 53

5. “The youthful radicals propelled a new set of values from the fringes to the midst of contemporary social conflict.” Rothman and Lichter, “Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left,” p. 392-394 Thus the themes and traits of the New Left have become prominent in today’s culture, and everything has become, ultimately, political. The result of the politicization of the culture is that one’s opponents are not merely wrong, but are morally evil, and, therefore, one may wish every affliction to befall them.

6. Modern liberals no longer have to break heads, as they control many of the institutions they once attacked, but lie they must, and do, as they could not get elected advertising their actual agenda. And, Maggie, that brings us full circle to the exposure of the Obama's political odyssey and Stanley Kurtz's exposure of same, does it not?

Do you find any errors above?

I'm saying it's a bunch of THE SKY IS FALLING opining. In other words, fearmongering. We will always have liberal and conservative ideologies, and eventually they meld. You need to deal with reality, dear.

 

[MaggieMae]

Curses..PC ferreted out a socialist..for the 1 ballizionth time.

Now if she can convince that many people to vote against him..

I'm too late!

The President himself has already done that!

Shucks.

You mean a takeover of the House? Oh they've been so effective, thus far, eh? Don't forget they can just as easily be voted OUT in 2012. The noobs have already learned in their short tenures that they need to start campaigning NOW, which means they too will slip into the long, dragged out, tedius process of trying to get what THEY want.

Just for giggles, check this out.
Obama: Job Ratings

 

[MaggieMae]

The 'socialist' Obama becomes president in the depths of a severe recession, financial crises throughout the business community, a stock market that has not shown a net gain for the EIGHT YEARS that an allegedly pro-business capitalism loving president has been in office,

and two years later you have a stock market hitting mult-year highs, and record corporate profits,

and through it all, the mindless rightwing propaganda-programmed braindead drone on - socialist socialist Marxist socialist communist socialist blah blah blah blah blah...

...lol, with enemies like Obama, why does corporate America need friends?

And they try to do it by dredging up 30+ year old history, and making futile attempts to tie it into today. It merely shows their desperation, in my opinion. The events of the 60's no way in hell resemble the events of today that mold our laws and society.

 

[MaggieMae]

I am always pleased to help you with your history...

1.A few years after Port Huron, its organization’s offshoot and legitimate heir, the Weathermen, organized the Days of Rage riots in Chicago. At a subsequent “War Council,” Tom Hayden led the Weathermen in “a workout of karate jabs and kicks” for a “strenuous fifteen minutes” in preparation for armed struggle. Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties, “ p. 96

a. Port Huron’s professions of love and brotherhood turned to rage and attack when society would not accept ‘brotherhood’ on SDS’s terms. But when the country refused to second their emotions—when the country elected President Nixon in 1968 and again, by larger margins, in 1972—the SDS grew bitter and increasingly alienated from the cause of democratic reform.

b. SDS grew from 600 in 1963 to over 100,000 in 1968…but fell apart by 1969, finally many hostile factions, until there remained only a small group of Maoists. It is interesting to compare them to the disciplined and programmed ‘Old Left,’ the Communist Party.

2. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.

3. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51

a. O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist.

4. “[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.” Ibid p. 53

5. “The youthful radicals propelled a new set of values from the fringes to the midst of contemporary social conflict.” Rothman and Lichter, “Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left,” p. 392-394 Thus the themes and traits of the New Left have become prominent in today’s culture, and everything has become, ultimately, political. The result of the politicization of the culture is that one’s opponents are not merely wrong, but are morally evil, and, therefore, one may wish every affliction to befall them.

6. Modern liberals no longer have to break heads, as they control many of the institutions they once attacked, but lie they must, and do, as they could not get elected advertising their actual agenda. And, Maggie, that brings us full circle to the exposure of the Obama's political odyssey and Stanley Kurtz's exposure of same, does it not?

Do you find any errors above?

Well aside from all of it.

There is no such thing as "Classical Liberal". That's conservative bullshit that basically means "Hey..we were really a part of the American Revolution".

1. Classical liberalism, the optimistic doctrine that gave us liberty, democracy, progress, was a moral project. It held that human society could always better itself by encouraging the good and diminishing the bad. It rested, therefore, on a very clear understanding that there was a higher cause than self-realization: that there were such things as right and wrong and that the former should be preferred over the latter. But the belief that autonomous individuals had the right to make subjective judgment about what was right for them in pursuit of their unchallengeable entitlement to happiness destroyed that understanding.
Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
Ideas from “The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284

2. You might find this enlightening as well.
From Herbert Croly:
The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14

Croly, at that time- before he realized the error of his ways, was a Progressive. He changed, so there is hope for you.

Sally...do not read any further! It will cause you to become a conservative!

3. In 1937, at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant progressive, noted that:
“Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come. . . . [T]he premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.

So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men’s lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states. . . .

Nearly everywhere the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon the increased power of officials to improve the condition of men.

4. What worried Lippmann the most—and what should worry us still—was the failure of those who considered themselves progressives to “remember how much of what they cherish as progressive has come by emancipation from political dominion, by the limitation of power, by the release of personal energy from authority and collective coercion.”https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/digital/rahe/default.asp

Do you ever have a nice concise opinion of your own capsulizing your page after page of historical tomes? Most people you might want to reach will be bored to tears. This is a forum for people to post THEIR opinions, not just the opinions of every historian who supports your point of view. I can only read so much of it, and my eyeballs start glazing over and I read no further, so it's a wasted effort on your part.

 

[boedicca]

Was this posted the same day Obama was off kissing the ass of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

Has there been an 'irony of the week' thread yet?

...oh...right...

Kissing ass?

He displayed his usual complete and utter lack of comprehension of business and economics. The overall theme of his message was that businesses have an obligation to "spread around the wealth".

No he didn't. You really should be ashamed of yourself for making such an idiotic statement in public. You really should make a serious effort to acquire enough self awareness, not to mention pride, that might make you capable of least occasionally refraining from exposing your painfully embarassing stupidity in a public forum.

Yes he did, you pathetic idiot:

“If there is a reason you don’t believe that this is the time to get off the sidelines — to hire and invest — I want to know about it. I want to fix it,” Mr. Obama said in a speech to business leaders at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In the speech, Mr. Obama pledged to eliminate unneeded regulations and simplify the tax code, but said companies had responsibilities to help the economy recover.

“Ultimately, winning the future is not just about what the government can do to help you succeed,” he said. “It’s about what you can do to help America succeed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=1


President Barack Obama prodded American businesses to do their share to help the economy, urging executives to "get in the game" and begin investing nearly $2 trillion accumulating on their balance sheets.

Obama urges execs: Use business gains to aid U.S. | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

"As we work with you to make America a better place to do business, ask yourselves what you can do for America. Ask yourselves what you can do to hire American workers, to support the American economy, and to invest in this nation."

Obama to Chamber of Commerce: `Ask what you can do for America,' not just for bottom line | StarTribune.com


The agenda of this speech was to get business to invest the $2T they are sitting on due to economic, regulatory, and tax uncertainty. Obama is not working to make America a better place to do business - he is working to make it a Big Government Centrally Planned Ruled by The Elite Utopia.

His idea to get rid of the interest expense deduction for businesses will kill off any chance the housing industry has of recovering - just one aspect to the great Colossus of his Economic Illiteracy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Awwww. The obvious response to getting called out. I guess, PC, you thought you'd slide the twisty part past us at the beginning so the slight of hand wasn't discovered.

But yeah, definitions only work when the meaning is shared by everyone. Might want to bone up on your deconstructionism/Derrida. When you throw the word socialist out there...for the discussion to have any meaning...we have to be talking about the same socialism.

I'm sure if felt all warm and fuzzy to troll post with a title about socialism...and bigrebnc probably creamed his pants over it...but to anyone actually reading and internalizing, we had to call bullshit from the beginning.

ACORN controls the banking sector? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
Socialism without goverment control? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!

*cough**choke**cough* oh wait, you're trying to be serious??

Your Obama Derangement Syndrome is showing. Might want to go get a shot.

1. You know, Vanquished, my fav part of debating with lefties is how you guys reveal your insecurities...
"...you thought you'd slide the twisty part past us ..."

C'mon, don't be afraid of standing up by yourself....if you have confidence in your opinion, than the 'us' stuff wouldn't be necessary.

That's why conservatives do so much better in debates, we're used to dealing with the liberal echo chamber that you grew up in.

2. Next, the "ACORN controls the banking sector? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
Socialism without goverment control? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"

Now, I'll evisorate your attack on the premise that ACORN was not a major factor in the mortgage meltdown:
a. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

b. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

c. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009


Did that wipe the "BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"
off your keyboard?
I guess she who laughs last laughs best, huh?

3. "definitions only work when the meaning is shared by everyone."
Didn't you notice how the Egypt crisis has led to a new definition of 'democracy' vis-a-vis the Muslim Brotherhood?

Those not too bright are often stuck when conditions change...and I guess that indicates you, huh?

Oh, and the answer to the change in the definition of socialism is in the post just before yours.

Now, write soon, hear?

Right there is a complete misstatement concerning the CRA, which simply required that banks END red-lining loan applications based on location, i.e., poverty neighborhoods. Yet you apparently ONLY read what YOU want which justifies YOUR position, as usual. Straight from your own echo chamber, I might add.

Imagine, if you will, that the discredited far right meme is actually correct: Assume that the CRA was a prime cause of the mortgage, credit and housing related crises.

CRA Thought Experiment | The Big Picture

Yes, he typed, it was all the CRA’s fault. (Stay with me here).

Assume arguendo that CRA legislation forced banks into making high risk, ill advised loans. And, let’s further assume a huge percentage of these government mandated mortgages have gone bad. The buyers who could not legitimately afford these homes or otherwise qualify for other mortgages have defaulted, and these houses are either in default, foreclosure or REOs.

What would this alternative nation look like?

Given the giant US housing boom and bust, this thought experiment would have several obvious and inevitable outcomes from CRA forced lending:

1) Home sales in CRA communities would have led the national home market higher, with sales gains (as a percentage) increasing even more than the national median;

2) Prices of CRA funded properties should have risen even more than the rest of the nation as sales ramped up.

3) After the market peaked and reversed, Distressed Sales in CRA regions should lead the national market downwards. Foreclosures and REOS should be much higher in CRA neighborhoods than the national median.

4) We should have reams of evidence detailing how CRA mandated loans have defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers versus the national default rates;

5) CRA Banks that were funding these mortgages should be failing in ever greater numbers, far more than the average bank;

6) Portfolios of large national TARP banks should be strewn with toxic CRA defaults; securitizers that purchased these mortgages should have compiled list of defaulted CRA properties;

7) Bank execs likely would have been complaining to the Bush White House from 2002-08 about these CRA mandates; The many finance executives who testified to Congress, would also have spelled out that CRA was a direct cause, with compelling evidence backing their claims.

So much for THAT thought experiment: None of these outcomes have occurred.

Zero.

You might check out all the comments in the above blog, where you'll find a variety of opinions. Always a good idea if you want to remain seen as an intellectual yourself. Barry Ritholz isn't your garden variety blogger either. He wrote the book "Bailout Nation," and others.

Could we cut right to the chase here?

Would the problem have developed, that is the mortgage meltdown, if statists such as yourself had not insunuated government into business decisions?
GRE's, CRA, HUD, FDR, Clinton, etc.

No better proof of the saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're conservative daffynitions are hilarious PC. Keep em comin'.

You can do better than that...don't hide behind nebulous blather...

 

[MaggieMae]

1. You know, Vanquished, my fav part of debating with lefties is how you guys reveal your insecurities...
"...you thought you'd slide the twisty part past us ..."

C'mon, don't be afraid of standing up by yourself....if you have confidence in your opinion, than the 'us' stuff wouldn't be necessary.

That's why conservatives do so much better in debates, we're used to dealing with the liberal echo chamber that you grew up in.

2. Next, the "ACORN controls the banking sector? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
Socialism without goverment control? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"

Now, I'll evisorate your attack on the premise that ACORN was not a major factor in the mortgage meltdown:
a. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

b. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

c. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009


Did that wipe the "BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"
off your keyboard?
I guess she who laughs last laughs best, huh?

3. "definitions only work when the meaning is shared by everyone."
Didn't you notice how the Egypt crisis has led to a new definition of 'democracy' vis-a-vis the Muslim Brotherhood?

Those not too bright are often stuck when conditions change...and I guess that indicates you, huh?

Oh, and the answer to the change in the definition of socialism is in the post just before yours.

Now, write soon, hear?

Right there is a complete misstatement concerning the CRA, which simply required that banks END red-lining loan applications based on location, i.e., poverty neighborhoods. Yet you apparently ONLY read what YOU want which justifies YOUR position, as usual. Straight from your own echo chamber, I might add.

Imagine, if you will, that the discredited far right meme is actually correct: Assume that the CRA was a prime cause of the mortgage, credit and housing related crises.

CRA Thought Experiment | The Big Picture

Yes, he typed, it was all the CRA’s fault. (Stay with me here).

Assume arguendo that CRA legislation forced banks into making high risk, ill advised loans. And, let’s further assume a huge percentage of these government mandated mortgages have gone bad. The buyers who could not legitimately afford these homes or otherwise qualify for other mortgages have defaulted, and these houses are either in default, foreclosure or REOs.

What would this alternative nation look like?

Given the giant US housing boom and bust, this thought experiment would have several obvious and inevitable outcomes from CRA forced lending:

1) Home sales in CRA communities would have led the national home market higher, with sales gains (as a percentage) increasing even more than the national median;

2) Prices of CRA funded properties should have risen even more than the rest of the nation as sales ramped up.

3) After the market peaked and reversed, Distressed Sales in CRA regions should lead the national market downwards. Foreclosures and REOS should be much higher in CRA neighborhoods than the national median.

4) We should have reams of evidence detailing how CRA mandated loans have defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers versus the national default rates;

5) CRA Banks that were funding these mortgages should be failing in ever greater numbers, far more than the average bank;

6) Portfolios of large national TARP banks should be strewn with toxic CRA defaults; securitizers that purchased these mortgages should have compiled list of defaulted CRA properties;

7) Bank execs likely would have been complaining to the Bush White House from 2002-08 about these CRA mandates; The many finance executives who testified to Congress, would also have spelled out that CRA was a direct cause, with compelling evidence backing their claims.

So much for THAT thought experiment: None of these outcomes have occurred.

Zero.

You might check out all the comments in the above blog, where you'll find a variety of opinions. Always a good idea if you want to remain seen as an intellectual yourself. Barry Ritholz isn't your garden variety blogger either. He wrote the book "Bailout Nation," and others.

Could we cut right to the chase here?

Would the problem have developed, that is the mortgage meltdown, if statists such as yourself had not insunuated government into business decisions?
GRE's, CRA, HUD, FDR, Clinton, etc.

No better proof of the saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Perhaps the next chapter should be devoted to the enormous subsidies granted by Republican administrations to bolster the profits of Big Oil, Big Pharma, and health insurance companies providing extra coverage under Medicare. Good intentions? I call it corporate welfare, which costs as much as people welfare, if not more. We can argue that, whenever you're ready.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kissing ass?

He displayed his usual complete and utter lack of comprehension of business and economics. The overall theme of his message was that businesses have an obligation to "spread around the wealth".

No he didn't. You really should be ashamed of yourself for making such an idiotic statement in public. You really should make a serious effort to acquire enough self awareness, not to mention pride, that might make you capable of least occasionally refraining from exposing your painfully embarassing stupidity in a public forum.

Yes he did, you pathetic idiot:

“If there is a reason you don’t believe that this is the time to get off the sidelines — to hire and invest — I want to know about it. I want to fix it,” Mr. Obama said in a speech to business leaders at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In the speech, Mr. Obama pledged to eliminate unneeded regulations and simplify the tax code, but said companies had responsibilities to help the economy recover.

“Ultimately, winning the future is not just about what the government can do to help you succeed,” he said. “It’s about what you can do to help America succeed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=1


President Barack Obama prodded American businesses to do their share to help the economy, urging executives to "get in the game" and begin investing nearly $2 trillion accumulating on their balance sheets.

Obama urges execs: Use business gains to aid U.S. | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

"As we work with you to make America a better place to do business, ask yourselves what you can do for America. Ask yourselves what you can do to hire American workers, to support the American economy, and to invest in this nation."

Obama to Chamber of Commerce: `Ask what you can do for America,' not just for bottom line | StarTribune.com


The agenda of this speech was to get business to invest the $2T they are sitting on due to economic, regulatory, and tax uncertainty. Obama is not working to make America a better place to do business - he is working to make it a Big Government Centrally Planned Ruled by The Elite Utopia.

His idea to get rid of the interest expense deduction for businesses will kill off any chance the housing industry has of recovering - just one aspect to the great Colossus of his Economic Illiteracy.

His utter lack of understanding of business and economics?

lol, you are projecting, big time, granny.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well aside from all of it.

There is no such thing as "Classical Liberal". That's conservative bullshit that basically means "Hey..we were really a part of the American Revolution".

1. Classical liberalism, the optimistic doctrine that gave us liberty, democracy, progress, was a moral project. It held that human society could always better itself by encouraging the good and diminishing the bad. It rested, therefore, on a very clear understanding that there was a higher cause than self-realization: that there were such things as right and wrong and that the former should be preferred over the latter. But the belief that autonomous individuals had the right to make subjective judgment about what was right for them in pursuit of their unchallengeable entitlement to happiness destroyed that understanding.
Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
Ideas from “The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284

2. You might find this enlightening as well.
From Herbert Croly:
The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14

Croly, at that time- before he realized the error of his ways, was a Progressive. He changed, so there is hope for you.

Sally...do not read any further! It will cause you to become a conservative!

3. In 1937, at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant progressive, noted that:
“Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come. . . . [T]he premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.

So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men’s lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states. . . .

Nearly everywhere the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon the increased power of officials to improve the condition of men.

4. What worried Lippmann the most—and what should worry us still—was the failure of those who considered themselves progressives to “remember how much of what they cherish as progressive has come by emancipation from political dominion, by the limitation of power, by the release of personal energy from authority and collective coercion.”https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/digital/rahe/default.asp

Do you ever have a nice concise opinion of your own capsulizing your page after page of historical tomes? Most people you might want to reach will be bored to tears. This is a forum for people to post THEIR opinions, not just the opinions of every historian who supports your point of view. I can only read so much of it, and my eyeballs start glazing over and I read no further, so it's a wasted effort on your part.

I know I'm having an effect when you guys start to quibble over style of posting rather than content.

 

[MaggieMae]

Now I have a wicked headache. Please be more brief, PC. No need for daily history lessons. Most of us get where you're coming from.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Right there is a complete misstatement concerning the CRA, which simply required that banks END red-lining loan applications based on location, i.e., poverty neighborhoods. Yet you apparently ONLY read what YOU want which justifies YOUR position, as usual. Straight from your own echo chamber, I might add.

Imagine, if you will, that the discredited far right meme is actually correct: Assume that the CRA was a prime cause of the mortgage, credit and housing related crises.

CRA Thought Experiment | The Big Picture


You might check out all the comments in the above blog, where you'll find a variety of opinions. Always a good idea if you want to remain seen as an intellectual yourself. Barry Ritholz isn't your garden variety blogger either. He wrote the book "Bailout Nation," and others.

Could we cut right to the chase here?

Would the problem have developed, that is the mortgage meltdown, if statists such as yourself had not insunuated government into business decisions?
GRE's, CRA, HUD, FDR, Clinton, etc.

No better proof of the saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Perhaps the next chapter should be devoted to the enormous subsidies granted by Republican administrations to bolster the profits of Big Oil, Big Pharma, and health insurance companies providing extra coverage under Medicare. Good intentions? I call it corporate welfare, which costs as much as people welfare, if not more. We can argue that, whenever you're ready.

"...Big Oil, Big Pharma, and health insurance companies ..."

Terrible how they make those obscene profits on poor folks!

It seems that being liberal means never having to provide context. First, let’s compare the profit margin of Big Oil to that of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, Nike, etc. The average profit margin for companies in the S & P 500 index was 13 cents. And “The [Oil] industry’s net profit per dollar of revenue was just under 9 cents, compared to… the S&P 500, meaning the “markup” for the oil and gas industry is below average.”
AAPL Key Statistics | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance, available for each company.

So, where are the complaints about ‘Big Sneaker,’ or ‘Big Shampoo’?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now I have a wicked headache. Please be more brief, PC. No need for daily history lessons. Most of us get where you're coming from.

'Big Pharma' makes aspirins....

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 'socialist' Obama becomes president in the depths of a severe recession, financial crises throughout the business community, a stock market that has not shown a net gain for the EIGHT YEARS that an allegedly pro-business capitalism loving president has been in office,

and two years later you have a stock market hitting mult-year highs, and record corporate profits,

and through it all, the mindless rightwing propaganda-programmed braindead drone on - socialist socialist Marxist socialist communist socialist blah blah blah blah blah...

...lol, with enemies like Obama, why does corporate America need friends?

And they try to do it by dredging up 30+ year old history, and making futile attempts to tie it into today. It merely shows their desperation, in my opinion. The events of the 60's no way in hell resemble the events of today that mold our laws and society.

They are nostalgic for the days of the Red Menace. Or some other similar boogie man who can be simplistically defined and easily comprehended by the weak minded.

 

[boedicca]

No he didn't. You really should be ashamed of yourself for making such an idiotic statement in public. You really should make a serious effort to acquire enough self awareness, not to mention pride, that might make you capable of least occasionally refraining from exposing your painfully embarassing stupidity in a public forum.

Yes he did, you pathetic idiot:

“If there is a reason you don’t believe that this is the time to get off the sidelines — to hire and invest — I want to know about it. I want to fix it,” Mr. Obama said in a speech to business leaders at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In the speech, Mr. Obama pledged to eliminate unneeded regulations and simplify the tax code, but said companies had responsibilities to help the economy recover.

“Ultimately, winning the future is not just about what the government can do to help you succeed,” he said. “It’s about what you can do to help America succeed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=1


President Barack Obama prodded American businesses to do their share to help the economy, urging executives to "get in the game" and begin investing nearly $2 trillion accumulating on their balance sheets.

Obama urges execs: Use business gains to aid U.S. | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

"As we work with you to make America a better place to do business, ask yourselves what you can do for America. Ask yourselves what you can do to hire American workers, to support the American economy, and to invest in this nation."

Obama to Chamber of Commerce: `Ask what you can do for America,' not just for bottom line | StarTribune.com


The agenda of this speech was to get business to invest the $2T they are sitting on due to economic, regulatory, and tax uncertainty. Obama is not working to make America a better place to do business - he is working to make it a Big Government Centrally Planned Ruled by The Elite Utopia.

His idea to get rid of the interest expense deduction for businesses will kill off any chance the housing industry has of recovering - just one aspect to the great Colossus of his Economic Illiteracy.

His utter lack of understanding of business and economics?

lol, you are projecting, big time, granny.

Obama has never run a business and never created a job. Yes, he is an illiterate when it comes to business and economics. His degree is in law; so he can't even claim an ivory tower understanding of the two.

I'm capable of understanding what his words mean - something you are congenitally unable to accomplish, you flaccid little man.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. You know, Vanquished, my fav part of debating with lefties is how you guys reveal your insecurities...
"...you thought you'd slide the twisty part past us ..."

C'mon, don't be afraid of standing up by yourself....if you have confidence in your opinion, than the 'us' stuff wouldn't be necessary.

That's why conservatives do so much better in debates, we're used to dealing with the liberal echo chamber that you grew up in.

2. Next, the "ACORN controls the banking sector? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
Socialism without goverment control? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"

Now, I'll evisorate your attack on the premise that ACORN was not a major factor in the mortgage meltdown:
a. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

b. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

c. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009


Did that wipe the "BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"
off your keyboard?
I guess she who laughs last laughs best, huh?

3. "definitions only work when the meaning is shared by everyone."
Didn't you notice how the Egypt crisis has led to a new definition of 'democracy' vis-a-vis the Muslim Brotherhood?

Those not too bright are often stuck when conditions change...and I guess that indicates you, huh?

Oh, and the answer to the change in the definition of socialism is in the post just before yours.

Now, write soon, hear?

Right there is a complete misstatement concerning the CRA, which simply required that banks END red-lining loan applications based on location, i.e., poverty neighborhoods. Yet you apparently ONLY read what YOU want which justifies YOUR position, as usual. Straight from your own echo chamber, I might add.

Imagine, if you will, that the discredited far right meme is actually correct: Assume that the CRA was a prime cause of the mortgage, credit and housing related crises.

CRA Thought Experiment | The Big Picture

Yes, he typed, it was all the CRA’s fault. (Stay with me here).

Assume arguendo that CRA legislation forced banks into making high risk, ill advised loans. And, let’s further assume a huge percentage of these government mandated mortgages have gone bad. The buyers who could not legitimately afford these homes or otherwise qualify for other mortgages have defaulted, and these houses are either in default, foreclosure or REOs.

What would this alternative nation look like?

Given the giant US housing boom and bust, this thought experiment would have several obvious and inevitable outcomes from CRA forced lending:

1) Home sales in CRA communities would have led the national home market higher, with sales gains (as a percentage) increasing even more than the national median;

2) Prices of CRA funded properties should have risen even more than the rest of the nation as sales ramped up.

3) After the market peaked and reversed, Distressed Sales in CRA regions should lead the national market downwards. Foreclosures and REOS should be much higher in CRA neighborhoods than the national median.

4) We should have reams of evidence detailing how CRA mandated loans have defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers versus the national default rates;

5) CRA Banks that were funding these mortgages should be failing in ever greater numbers, far more than the average bank;

6) Portfolios of large national TARP banks should be strewn with toxic CRA defaults; securitizers that purchased these mortgages should have compiled list of defaulted CRA properties;

7) Bank execs likely would have been complaining to the Bush White House from 2002-08 about these CRA mandates; The many finance executives who testified to Congress, would also have spelled out that CRA was a direct cause, with compelling evidence backing their claims.

So much for THAT thought experiment: None of these outcomes have occurred.

Zero.

You might check out all the comments in the above blog, where you'll find a variety of opinions. Always a good idea if you want to remain seen as an intellectual yourself. Barry Ritholz isn't your garden variety blogger either. He wrote the book "Bailout Nation," and others.

Could we cut right to the chase here?

Would the problem have developed, that is the mortgage meltdown, if statists such as yourself had not insunuated government into business decisions?
GRE's, CRA, HUD, FDR, Clinton, etc.

No better proof of the saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

It was the government's failure to strictly regulate financial institutions that caused the meltdown. Nothing else.

 

[BlindBoo]

That's okay my def. of fascism might differ from the traditional one but with my def. it plain as the nose on your face that the GOP are desprately trying to turn the US into a fascist country run by corporations.

 

[Sallow]

You're conservative daffynitions are hilarious PC. Keep em comin'.

You can do better than that...don't hide behind nebulous blather...

Hookay..

Sure.

Which form of government is not some form of Collectivism?

And please keep your answer to at least one thread page. There's no extra credit for lots of words.