Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
Learning your economics from the A.M. radio - complete with buzzwords - is a dangerous thing. It makes you spout, for instance, about things you know nothing about.
Which is why you spout about Schumpeter without realizing that Schumpeter described an evolution into corporatism (which has shown to be a pretty good prediction).
Partisan hack=doesn't suck Obama's dick.
At least no one will accuse you of not being a partisan hack!
"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.
no. sowell is a partisan hack.
that's fact.
Partisan hack=doesn't suck Obama's dick.
At least no one will accuse you of not being a partisan hack!
No, partisan hack = "Barney Frank is the man most responsible for the Financial Crisis," which is what Sowell said. This is a narrative that only pings around the right wing echo chamber. It is not a serious comment.
Partisan hack=doesn't suck Obama's dick.
At least no one will accuse you of not being a partisan hack!
No, partisan hack = "Barney Frank is the man most responsible for the Financial Crisis," which is what Sowell said. This is a narrative that only pings around the right wing echo chamber. It is not a serious comment.
Well he makes a pretty good case for it. Do you have a better candidate? Do you have some information to refute anything he writes?
A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
Learning your economics from the A.M. radio - complete with buzzwords - is a dangerous thing. It makes you spout, for instance, about things you know nothing about.
Which is why you spout about Schumpeter without realizing that Schumpeter described an evolution into corporatism (which has shown to be a pretty good prediction).
A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
Learning your economics from the A.M. radio - complete with buzzwords - is a dangerous thing. It makes you spout, for instance, about things you know nothing about.
Which is why you spout about Schumpeter without realizing that Schumpeter described an evolution into corporatism (which has shown to be a pretty good prediction).
it is pretty funny, isn't it?
when rush or beck tell them something, it makes them think they actually have some knowledge.
Partisan hack=doesn't suck Obama's dick.
At least no one will accuse you of not being a partisan hack!
No, partisan hack = "Barney Frank is the man most responsible for the Financial Crisis," which is what Sowell said. This is a narrative that only pings around the right wing echo chamber. It is not a serious comment.
Well he makes a pretty good case for it. Do you have a better candidate? Do you have some information to refute anything he writes?
No, partisan hack = "Barney Frank is the man most responsible for the Financial Crisis," which is what Sowell said. This is a narrative that only pings around the right wing echo chamber. It is not a serious comment.
Well he makes a pretty good case for it. Do you have a better candidate? Do you have some information to refute anything he writes?
Yeah, Alan Greenspan.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html
I would agree except for three things:
1) Greenspan wasn't elected, so he is not as accountable as Frank, who is.
2) Greenspan wasn't told directly that his policies were leading to problems, Frank was.
3) The problems started with mortgages and MBS, which Frank was in a position to affect direct, while Greenspan was not.
But your point is taken.
I would agree except for three things:
1) Greenspan wasn't elected, so he is not as accountable as Frank, who is.
2) Greenspan wasn't told directly that his policies were leading to problems, Frank was.
3) The problems started with mortgages and MBS, which Frank was in a position to affect direct, while Greenspan was not.
But your point is taken.
Gosh..do you seriously understand derivatives and credit swaps? Don't feel bad if you don't, lots of people don't understand them. It still confuses the heck out of me. But the CRA didn't cause the economic mess we are in today.
It's easy to point to the poor and say...THEY DID IT!
But that simply isn't true.
I would agree except for three things:
1) Greenspan wasn't elected, so he is not as accountable as Frank, who is.
2) Greenspan wasn't told directly that his policies were leading to problems, Frank was.
3) The problems started with mortgages and MBS, which Frank was in a position to affect direct, while Greenspan was not.
But your point is taken.
Gosh..do you seriously understand derivatives and credit swaps? Don't feel bad if you don't, lots of people don't understand them. It still confuses the heck out of me. But the CRA didn't cause the economic mess we are in today.
It's easy to point to the poor and say...THEY DID IT!
But that simply isn't true.
The CRA was only contributory. But Fannie/Freddie were the major buyers and conduits for mortgages. They were overseen by the gov't, and specifically the House committee that Barney Frank sat on.
I love Sowell..........but really, who cares?? All the assholes on this thread with the dumbass question?........"prove CRA caused the housing meltdown!!!!!"
How about..........prove it didnt cause it assholes...............
Bottom line? Round two of the mortgage meltdown is gonna hit in the next 18 months and George Bush will be kicking back in Crawford chowing down steaks!!!! And nobody will care............but it'll be another kick in the balls for Obama as the economy hits the crapper round #2!!!!
Sowell is a racist and a homophobe.
There, now that we have that out of the way....
I love Sowell..........but really, who cares?? All the assholes on this thread with the dumbass question?........"prove CRA caused the housing meltdown!!!!!"
How about..........prove it didnt cause it assholes...............
Learning your economics from the A.M. radio - complete with buzzwords - is a dangerous thing. It makes you spout, for instance, about things you know nothing about.
Which is why you spout about Schumpeter without realizing that Schumpeter described an evolution into corporatism (which has shown to be a pretty good prediction).
it is pretty funny, isn't it?
when rush or beck tell them something, it makes them think they actually have some knowledge.
Have you quit smoking Alex's wiener?
it is pretty funny, isn't it?
when rush or beck tell them something, it makes them think they actually have some knowledge.
Have you quit smoking Alex's wiener?
Jilllian's self-acknowledged dreamboy is the Chicago 7 (or 6....depending how one parses the facts) Terrorist Jerry Rubin with whom Jillian claims she was "involved".
BTW, Jerry Rubin proclaimed that Charlie Manson was his idol (you can verify that on Wikipedia, or google).
Now, Jillian is a flagrant Obamarrhoidal LIEbturd hack....don't know how she is "involved" with Obambo's arseholes.....but we do know that Obami Salaami was "involved" with the OTHER COMMIE/Terrorist, his pal Bill Avery..... from whose house Obambi lauched his Senatorial career.
These Obamarrhoids.....wonderful people aren't they ???
Birds of a feather fock together.
