Prof SOWELL on BWARNEY FWANK

[gautama]

A definitive exposure of the LEAST FRANKEST Politicos in U.S. History: Bwarney FWANK:

Is Barney Frank? - Thomas Sowell - Townhall Conservative

 

[Granny]

Good article - Sowell is right.

 

[Annie]

Everything that Sowell wrote was correct, what's missing though was Barney's conflict of interest at the time:

Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest

Friday , October 03, 2008
By Bill Sammon

WASHINGTON —
Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.

So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.

Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.

"It’s absolutely a conflict," said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. "He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?

"If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have - or at least what’s not in the stock market - that this would be considered germane," added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. "But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard."...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sowell is a racist and a homophobe.

There, now that we have that out of the way....

 

[BlindBoo]

Another way to measure the relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis is to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods that are classified by income. Data made available by RealtyTrac on foreclosure filings from January 2006 through August 2008 indicate that most foreclosure filings (e.g., about 70 percent in 2006) have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods. More important, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.9/ (See Table 7.)

Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.

Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? - Community Dividend - Publications & Papers | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

So in other words Thomas is again not backing up his conjecture with facts.

 

[Annie]

Sowell is a racist and a homophobe.

There, now that we have that out of the way....

Well I think the race card is done. But the gay card? May still be viable.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sowell is a racist and a homophobe.

There, now that we have that out of the way....

Well I think the race card is done. But the gay card? May still be viable.

Well... YEAH!!! Always in lieu of any sane argument in support of one's point of view.

 

[8537]

Perhaps Mr Sowell would like to explain how loans made outside of Fannie or Freddie repurchase and outside the purview of the CRA were somehow forced upon these institutions.

Hint: they weren't. The institutions made the loans because they were making money hand over fist repackaging them. That's why 80% of subprimes were handed out by nondepository institutions between 2002 and 2007.

 

[Toro]

Sowell is a partisan hack. This has been refuted with data several times but the ideological shills keep repeating the same lies over and over.

If anyone can back up Sowell's argument with empirical data, please post it. But I haven't seen a single thing yet to back this up.

 

[The T]

Sowell is a racist and a homophobe.

There, now that we have that out of the way....[/quote

You play a great Statist/Liberal...Staying in a Holiday Inn Express?

Cut 'em to the quick. Good form.

 

[The T]

Everything that Sowell wrote was correct, what's missing though was Barney's conflict of interest at the time:

Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest

Friday , October 03, 2008
By Bill Sammon

WASHINGTON —
Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.

So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.

Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.

"It’s absolutely a conflict," said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. "He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?

"If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have - or at least what’s not in the stock market - that this would be considered germane," added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. "But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard."...

And that partner has more meaning than some on here suspect.

 

[Vanbasten]

Excellent article by Dr. Sowell.

Contrary to liberal belief, banks don't want mortgages to fail. Saying they were making money 'hand over fist' in some sort of money making scheme is irrelevant whether true or not. And if that was true, they sure miscalculated as many of them closed their doors.

 

[MaggieMae]

Another way to measure the relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis is to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods that are classified by income. Data made available by RealtyTrac on foreclosure filings from January 2006 through August 2008 indicate that most foreclosure filings (e.g., about 70 percent in 2006) have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods. More important, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.9/ (See Table 7.)

Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.

Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? - Community Dividend - Publications & Papers | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

So in other words Thomas is again not backing up his conjecture with facts.

I've finally come to the conclusion that this issue will never, ever be won with facts. I'm worn out from trying. So I'm passing the baton to you at least with respect to this board.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sowell is a partisan hack. This has been refuted with data several times but the ideological shills keep repeating the same lies over and over.

If anyone can back up Sowell's argument with empirical data, please post it. But I haven't seen a single thing yet to back this up.

Which misread part of Sowell's excellent article do you find objectionable? The fact is that mortgage criteria were continuously watered down through that period because repackaging the loans into MBS's was immensely profitable. Once you run out of qualified buyers, however, you can only expand the market by loosening criteria. Which is what was done. Bad loans generally take 18 months before they go bad.

Frank continuously pushed for more "affordable loan" programs for his own political agenda. Where he should have been overseeing Fannie's regulator he was beating up on the regulator. He was joined in this by Chris Dodd. The fact that no politicians have gone to jail over the mortgage scandal is testament to the duplicity of the press with the Democratic party.

 

[MaggieMae]

Excellent article by Dr. Sowell.

Contrary to liberal belief, banks don't want mortgages to fail. Saying they were making money 'hand over fist' in some sort of money making scheme is irrelevant whether true or not. And if that was true, they sure miscalculated as many of them closed their doors.

The small lending banks weren't the ones complicit in the mortgage securities packaging that the large Wall Street investment banks were doing. When a small bank sold a mortgage to, say Lehman Brothers, the paper trail ended there for the bank. Then of course only God knows where some of the mortgages actually wound up.

Oops, I just said I was finished discussing this. Okay, that's my last word on the subject.

 

[skookerasbil]

God bless Thomas Sowell.........guy singlehandedly changed my life back in 1980 when I read his book, "Pink and Brown People".
Up 'till that time, I walked around college with my Marx/Engels Reader under my arm thinking I was smarter than everybody else........a full fledged lefty following the Grateful Dead all over the Northeast.
Sowells works decimate liberal logic like no other.........he has been a beacon of truth for me for the last 30 years. He is most famous for his saying, "Liberals are concerned only with good intentions.........they have no care for 'results'". It is the most dead on assessment of liberal ideology that exists.

 

[Toro]

Sowell is a partisan hack. This has been refuted with data several times but the ideological shills keep repeating the same lies over and over.

If anyone can back up Sowell's argument with empirical data, please post it. But I haven't seen a single thing yet to back this up.

Which misread part of Sowell's excellent article do you find objectionable? The fact is that mortgage criteria were continuously watered down through that period because repackaging the loans into MBS's was immensely profitable. Once you run out of qualified buyers, however, you can only expand the market by loosening criteria. Which is what was done. Bad loans generally take 18 months before they go bad.

Frank continuously pushed for more "affordable loan" programs for his own political agenda. Where he should have been overseeing Fannie's regulator he was beating up on the regulator. He was joined in this by Chris Dodd. The fact that no politicians have gone to jail over the mortgage scandal is testament to the duplicity of the press with the Democratic party.

What do I find objectionable? That it is overwhelmingly false, and all the empirical evidence is against it. He doesn't back up his argument with a single piece of evidence. He just says "I believe this." Well, so what? Believing in fairies doesn't make them real.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html

Like I said, if you can find a shred of empirical evidence to back up the claim, please post it. I'm more than happy to change my mind. But opinions and timelines aren't evidence.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't think Frank is going to lose reelection, but if he did, that would be something.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sowell is a partisan hack. This has been refuted with data several times but the ideological shills keep repeating the same lies over and over.

If anyone can back up Sowell's argument with empirical data, please post it. But I haven't seen a single thing yet to back this up.

Which misread part of Sowell's excellent article do you find objectionable? The fact is that mortgage criteria were continuously watered down through that period because repackaging the loans into MBS's was immensely profitable. Once you run out of qualified buyers, however, you can only expand the market by loosening criteria. Which is what was done. Bad loans generally take 18 months before they go bad.

Frank continuously pushed for more "affordable loan" programs for his own political agenda. Where he should have been overseeing Fannie's regulator he was beating up on the regulator. He was joined in this by Chris Dodd. The fact that no politicians have gone to jail over the mortgage scandal is testament to the duplicity of the press with the Democratic party.

What do I find objectionable? That it is overwhelmingly false, and all the empirical evidence is against it. He doesn't back up his argument with a single piece of evidence. He just says "I believe this." Well, so what? Believing in fairies doesn't make them real.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html

Like I said, if you can find a shred of empirical evidence to back up the claim, please post it. I'm more than happy to change my mind. But opinions and timelines aren't evidence.

OK so it's objectionable because Sowell is black. Got it.

 

[gautama]

Sowell is a partisan hack. This has been refuted with data several times but the ideological shills keep repeating the same lies over and over.

If anyone can back up Sowell's argument with empirical data, please post it. But I haven't seen a single thing yet to back this up.

Which misread part of Sowell's excellent article do you find objectionable? The fact is that mortgage criteria were continuously watered down through that period because repackaging the loans into MBS's was immensely profitable. Once you run out of qualified buyers, however, you can only expand the market by loosening criteria. Which is what was done. Bad loans generally take 18 months before they go bad.

Frank continuously pushed for more "affordable loan" programs for his own political agenda. Where he should have been overseeing Fannie's regulator he was beating up on the regulator. He was joined in this by Chris Dodd. The fact that no politicians have gone to jail over the mortgage scandal is testament to the duplicity of the press with the Democratic party.

What do I find objectionable? That it is overwhelmingly false, and all the empirical evidence is against it. He doesn't back up his argument with a single piece of evidence. He just says "I believe this." Well, so what? Believing in fairies doesn't make them real.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html

Like I said, if you can find a shred of empirical evidence to back up the claim, please post it. I'm more than happy to change my mind. But opinions and timelines aren't evidence.

ToroSHIT,

Read AquaAthena's excerpts (from Sowell's article, supplied by me):


"I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafty and unsoundness [of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than, in fact, exists."--Barney Frank---September 25th, 2003

The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do NOT see.: --Barney Frank---September 10th, 2003

:"I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing."--Barney Frank---September 25th, 2003[/b]"

ToroSHIT, Now read your fucking puke:

"Sowell is a partisan hack. This has been refuted with data several times but the ideological shills keep repeating the same lies over and over.

If anyone can back up Sowell's argument with empirical data, please post it. But I haven't seen a single thing yet to back this up.[/quote]"

Are you AWARE of, or, do you even UNDERSTAND how hollow your Obamarrhoidal LIERbturd LIEBERRHOID ToroSHIT sounds ????

What the fuck is their even any necessity for your phoney "empirical data" which is invariably SUBSEQUENTLY given as an ARSE-COVERING obfuscation, and distortion a la vintage Bwarney-Farney Fwanky-Wanky OUTRIGHT LIES "explaining" thisa and thata of the above away when the INCRIMINATING PUKE ISSUING FROM THE QUEER CLOWN'S VERY OWN ORIFICE CONDEMNS HIM/IT ??????

Is the venerable Prof Sowell of Stanford Univ with an established scholarly reputation a political hack ??????.......Or, is it you, you phoney Obamarrhoidal LIEBturd La Raza wetback pissant ?????