skookerasbil
Platinum Member
"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.
Do you 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 covered up with obfuscating, and distorting 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 ?????[/QUOTE]