Joe B updated Democratic Field Rating (Progressives only, please)

[Olde Europe]

Bloomberg blamed the 2008 crash on the CRA.

So?

He argued for deficit reduction - in 2011 - largely on the backs of the poor and the middle class, filed under "entitlement reform". That was "urgent", he felt - in 2011.

And he has a point. At some point, we are going to have to tackle Social Security and Medicare.

As to his prospects, think about the turnout by (1) blacks, (2) progressives (Warren, Sanders), and (3) working class Whites in favor of a stop-and-frisk plutocrat without Trump's serving up someone to look down upon. Also, we're going to get the first glimpse of Bloomberg in the Nevada debate, and that's going to tell you something about how he'll manage tow-to-toe with Trump. Bearing in mind that Trump is a wholly different animal to deal with in a ... "debate".

If progressives and blacks stay home, that's their own damned fault if Trump gets a second term. So it's kind of a hobson's choice. Make the progressives happy and nominate Commie Bernie, and then wonder why the Suburban Women flee back to the Republicans in droves.

You see, true story. The reason why Democrats won in the Mid-terms is not because AOC stole a safe district screaming "Socialism is wonderful". They won because they ran sensible candidates suburban women could get behind.

Blaming the 2008 crash on the CRA is the sign of an economic illiterate. You praised Bloomberg for his economic savvy.

Deficit reduction on the backs of the worst off, in 2011, in a deeply depressed economy, is the sign of an economic illiterate. You praised Bloomberg for his economic savvy.

I thought you want to defeat Trump. Now you are proposing a candidate who has problems with core parts of the Democratic constituency. You see, true story: The next candidate will have to build a coalition at least the size of Obama's, and my list should give you a hint that Bloomberg may not be able to do that. And you counter that with some truism about Dem representatives in (formerly) red districts? And you can't see why that is perfectly immaterial?

 

[JoeB131]

Blaming the 2008 crash on the CRA is the sign of an economic illiterate. You praised Bloomberg for his economic savvy.

No, it's an opinion. You really think forcing the banks to loan to people who they would have normally rejected didn't contribute to the problem?

Deficit reduction on the backs of the worst off, in 2011, in a deeply depressed economy, is the sign of an economic illiterate. You praised Bloomberg for his economic savvy.

Uh, one more time. Medicare and Social Security HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. You aren't going to plug holes in 30 Trillion in obligations by merely 'taxing rich people'. Some things are going to have to be done. I praise Bloomberg for being a realist.

I thought you want to defeat Trump. Now you are proposing a candidate who has problems with core parts of the Democratic constituency. You see, true story: The next candidate will have to build a coalition at least the size of Obama's, and my list should give you a hint that Bloomberg may not be able to do that. And you counter that with some truism about Dem representatives in (formerly) red districts? And you can't see why that is perfectly immaterial?

Again, the only reason why Obama built his "coalition" was because people were pissed off about an unnecessary war and a massive recession. That's why JUST ENOUGH white people in the suburbs were willing to take a chance on this guy with the funny name.

That's not going to happen this time. This time, you have to win over people who are economically comfortable, but still convince them that the guy you want to put in there is less crazy than the guy in there now.

Simply put, some gangbanger in NYC who is still butthurt the cops frisked him and took his pot stash isn't going to be key to this election. We need Ms. White Suburban Mom to vote for us. Bloomberg gets us there. Commie Bernie doesn't.

 

[Olde Europe]

Blaming the 2008 crash on the CRA is the sign of an economic illiterate. You praised Bloomberg for his economic savvy.

No, it's an opinion. You really think forcing the banks to loan to people who they would have normally rejected didn't contribute to the problem?

Deficit reduction on the backs of the worst off, in 2011, in a deeply depressed economy, is the sign of an economic illiterate. You praised Bloomberg for his economic savvy.

Uh, one more time. Medicare and Social Security HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. You aren't going to plug holes in 30 Trillion in obligations by merely 'taxing rich people'. Some things are going to have to be done. I praise Bloomberg for being a realist.

I thought you want to defeat Trump. Now you are proposing a candidate who has problems with core parts of the Democratic constituency. You see, true story: The next candidate will have to build a coalition at least the size of Obama's, and my list should give you a hint that Bloomberg may not be able to do that. And you counter that with some truism about Dem representatives in (formerly) red districts? And you can't see why that is perfectly immaterial?

Again, the only reason why Obama built his "coalition" was because people were pissed off about an unnecessary war and a massive recession. That's why JUST ENOUGH white people in the suburbs were willing to take a chance on this guy with the funny name.

That's not going to happen this time. This time, you have to win over people who are economically comfortable, but still convince them that the guy you want to put in there is less crazy than the guy in there now.

Simply put, some gangbanger in NYC who is still butthurt the cops frisked him and took his pot stash isn't going to be key to this election. We need Ms. White Suburban Mom to vote for us. Bloomberg gets us there. Commie Bernie doesn't.

Now you are just spouting stupid shit.

The CRA never mandated mortgages given to folks who couldn't pay them back. The surge of subprime mortgages in 2003/4 originated in mortgage farms not regulated by the CRA. The CRA, one more time, had nothing to do with the crash of 2008, and saying otherwise is the sign of an economic illiterate.

Again, arguing for deficit reduction in 2011, in a deeply depressed economy, is the sign of an economic illiterate. The fact that entitlements need to be tackled at some time in the future doesn't change that one whit, and engaging in that debate in a deeply depressed economy is another sign of an economic illiterate.

It doesn't matter how Obama built that winning coalition in 2008, and again, in widely different circumstances, in 2012: The point is, the next Dem has to build a coalition of at least the same extend as Obama did. Bloomberg is probably not the person to do that. "Suburban women" is not a coalition, and a record repugnant to other groups crucial for any Democratic coalition spells doom. And, BTW, nothing portends suburban mom's support quite like creating a work environment hostile to women, and then shutting them up with NDAs.

Bloomberg is a typical Republican billionaire - just not a Trumpleton, without the usual baggage of gun nuttery and climate change denial. Otherwise, he's shown up in yesterday's debate obviously unprepared, slow on his feet, with an over-entitled brat's expectation all act in deference to him, just like when he shows up as the patriarch at the conference table. His "performance" was lousy, and, near effortlessly done in by Warren, he probably couldn't hold his own against Trump.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Blaming the 2008 crash on the CRA is the sign of an economic illiterate. You praised Bloomberg for his economic savvy.

No, it's an opinion. You really think forcing the banks to loan to people who they would have normally rejected didn't contribute to the problem?

Deficit reduction on the backs of the worst off, in 2011, in a deeply depressed economy, is the sign of an economic illiterate. You praised Bloomberg for his economic savvy.

Uh, one more time. Medicare and Social Security HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. You aren't going to plug holes in 30 Trillion in obligations by merely 'taxing rich people'. Some things are going to have to be done. I praise Bloomberg for being a realist.

I thought you want to defeat Trump. Now you are proposing a candidate who has problems with core parts of the Democratic constituency. You see, true story: The next candidate will have to build a coalition at least the size of Obama's, and my list should give you a hint that Bloomberg may not be able to do that. And you counter that with some truism about Dem representatives in (formerly) red districts? And you can't see why that is perfectly immaterial?

Again, the only reason why Obama built his "coalition" was because people were pissed off about an unnecessary war and a massive recession. That's why JUST ENOUGH white people in the suburbs were willing to take a chance on this guy with the funny name.

That's not going to happen this time. This time, you have to win over people who are economically comfortable, but still convince them that the guy you want to put in there is less crazy than the guy in there now.

Simply put, some gangbanger in NYC who is still butthurt the cops frisked him and took his pot stash isn't going to be key to this election. We need Ms. White Suburban Mom to vote for us. Bloomberg gets us there. Commie Bernie doesn't.

Banks were never forced to make loans to unqualified applicants. The Fed was shoveling money out the door as fast as possible, and Hank Paulsen said the biggest problems were sub-prime loans issued in the early 2000's, and the subsequent, unaffordable adjustments to those interest rates. Those loans were bundled with others, of course, for derivative sales. A lot went into crashing the housing market, but the CRA wasn't part of it.

If you were alive at the time, and had a discernible credit rating, you were bombarded with mortgage and re-fi loan offers. Most of those afforded the opportunity to cash out some equity. Plenty did, spending that equity in ways that pumped up the economy, but left the borrower underwater when the crash came.

It's a sad attempt to shift blame to poor people, when one claims banks were forced to make bad loans. Buncha b.s.

 

[SAYIT]

I like Sanders. He would be my first choice, but I think he's too far too fast for most folks.

There's also the simple fact that the nation may not survive 4 more years of a spoiled child as president. As it is it will take decades to undo all the damage he's done, rebuild the experience and institutional knowledge he has thrown out, and deprogram all his rabid followers..

Mayor Pete has a similar issue. The nation just isn't ready for a gay president.

Styer isn't really going anywhere fast.

Warren isn't going anywhere fast.

Klobuchar does seem to be angling for a VP spot.

That leaves Bloomberg, who really does seem to have the best chance right now. Both more money and brains that tRump, all he lacks is the legions of brain-dead followers. But I don't think he's a zombie king kinda guy. He seems to atract folks with a higher IQ than the average tRumpling.

I'm gonna hafta say he's the favorite, at the moment at least.

You claimed you know what "that word communism" means.

Then this: "I like Sanders."

LOL

Yeah, you got it!

If you are calling any of the current candidates communist, then you do know what that word means.

Communism starts with socialism. Socialism leads to communism.

I did not call anyone but Bernie a communist, whose ideology is Marxism. The rest of them are not far behind.

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   
   • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Blaming the 2008 crash on the CRA is the sign of an economic illiterate. You praised Bloomberg for his economic savvy.

No, it's an opinion. You really think forcing the banks to loan to people who they would have normally rejected didn't contribute to the problem?

Deficit reduction on the backs of the worst off, in 2011, in a deeply depressed economy, is the sign of an economic illiterate. You praised Bloomberg for his economic savvy.

Uh, one more time. Medicare and Social Security HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. You aren't going to plug holes in 30 Trillion in obligations by merely 'taxing rich people'. Some things are going to have to be done. I praise Bloomberg for being a realist.

I thought you want to defeat Trump. Now you are proposing a candidate who has problems with core parts of the Democratic constituency. You see, true story: The next candidate will have to build a coalition at least the size of Obama's, and my list should give you a hint that Bloomberg may not be able to do that. And you counter that with some truism about Dem representatives in (formerly) red districts? And you can't see why that is perfectly immaterial?

Again, the only reason why Obama built his "coalition" was because people were pissed off about an unnecessary war and a massive recession. That's why JUST ENOUGH white people in the suburbs were willing to take a chance on this guy with the funny name.

That's not going to happen this time. This time, you have to win over people who are economically comfortable, but still convince them that the guy you want to put in there is less crazy than the guy in there now.

Simply put, some gangbanger in NYC who is still butthurt the cops frisked him and took his pot stash isn't going to be key to this election. We need Ms. White Suburban Mom to vote for us. Bloomberg gets us there. Commie Bernie doesn't.

I gotta give you credit here.

 

[JoeB131]

Now you are just spouting stupid shit.

The CRA never mandated mortgages given to folks who couldn't pay them back. The surge of subprime mortgages in 2003/4 originated in mortgage farms not regulated by the CRA. The CRA, one more time, had nothing to do with the crash of 2008, and saying otherwise is the sign of an economic illiterate.

Okay, you guys keep telling yourself that. You keep telling yourself that the banks didn't create the mortgage farms because they were terrified of being sued by some Sharpton type when they told someone you can't count welfare as income.

Again, arguing for deficit reduction in 2011, in a deeply depressed economy, is the sign of an economic illiterate. The fact that entitlements need to be tackled at some time in the future doesn't change that one whit, and engaging in that debate in a deeply depressed economy is another sign of an economic illiterate.

But that's the problem. There's always an excuse about why we can't tackle the problem "now", and we have to tackle it "in the future".

It doesn't matter how Obama built that winning coalition in 2008, and again, in widely different circumstances, in 2012: The point is, the next Dem has to build a coalition of at least the same extend as Obama did. Bloomberg is probably not the person to do that. "Suburban women" is not a coalition, and a record repugnant to other groups crucial for any Democratic coalition spells doom. And, BTW, nothing portends suburban mom's support quite like creating a work environment hostile to women, and then shutting them up with NDAs.

Most sensible people realize that PoundMeToo and the crazy nut who claims "Sexual Harassment" when she's an underperformer doesn't reflect most women. Most women can actually take a joke and know what the back and forth of an office is like.

But, please, please, please, go ahead and nominate Commie Bernie, who appeals to your "Coalition". He'll be McGovern 2.0. Remember George McGovern? Mr. Abortion, Amnesty and Acid? The guy who lost 49 states to Tricky Dick.

Banks were never forced to make loans to unqualified applicants. The Fed was shoveling money out the door as fast as possible, and Hank Paulsen said the biggest problems were sub-prime loans issued in the early 2000's, and the subsequent, unaffordable adjustments to those interest rates. Those loans were bundled with others, of course, for derivative sales. A lot went into crashing the housing market, but the CRA wasn't part of it.

If you were alive at the time, and had a discernible credit rating, you were bombarded with mortgage and re-fi loan offers. Most of those afforded the opportunity to cash out some equity. Plenty did, spending that equity in ways that pumped up the economy, but left the borrower underwater when the crash came.

It's a sad attempt to shift blame to poor people, when one claims banks were forced to make bad loans. Buncha b.s.

No, the banks aren't claiming that. The banks want to keep doing that. You do realize that the "sub-prime" loans are the ones that went to poor people, right? The ones who shouldn't have gotten ANY kind of loan because they didn't have the income. BOTH Parties patted themselves on the back for putting people into houses they couldn't afford.

 

[JoeB131]

Bloomberg is a typical Republican billionaire - just not a Trumpleton, without the usual baggage of gun nuttery and climate change denial. Otherwise, he's shown up in yesterday's debate obviously unprepared, slow on his feet, with an over-entitled brat's expectation all act in deference to him, just like when he shows up as the patriarch at the conference table. His "performance" was lousy, and, near effortlessly done in by Warren, he probably couldn't hold his own against Trump.

Again, I'm not electing a Debate Club President. I agree, Bloomberg, who only found out he was getting into the debate the day before, wasn't ready. So what?

So we have fucking Pocohontos, who bragged about how she took the last three bucks from some struggling college student,

Critics target Elizabeth Warren for accepting $3 donation from ‘broke college student’

shreiking at a man who created thousands of jobs and a financial empire. Yeah, that's a GREAT choice. Boy, she showed him by confronting him on court cases that were settled decades ago that he doesn't have the authority to release.

You know what, you fuckers DESERVE a second term of Trump.

 

[Olde Europe]

Again, I'm not electing a Debate Club President. I agree, Bloomberg, who only found out he was getting into the debate the day before, wasn't ready. So what?

Wow.

He knew he was entering the race for months. He was in it for weeks. He had been dealing with these questions about his record for years, if not decades. It plainly cannot have come as a surprise to him there would be debates. Still, he wasn't prepared.

Because, "not prepared" is what you'd expect from someone running for President of the U.S. of A.

Really, if he can't deal with Senator-Professor Warren, how do you expect him to deal with Trump, or Putin, for that matter? If he has better, more important things to do with his time than to prepare for the office he seeks, and to meet the requirements to attain it, he shouldn't be running. "So what?" isn't an argument, it's a declaration of bankruptcy.

Perhaps more importantly, if he didn't have the time to prepare for the debate, he should not have shown up until he actually is prepared. My assessment would be, he thought he was prepared when he was not, and that means that his own self-assessment is thoroughly flawed, and the folks who advise him are not prepared to tell him otherwise. All bad signs. You can't see any?

 

[Flash]

[


he isn't successful. He's spent his whole life living off the hard work of others.
.

So you will be voting for Commie Bernie then. This Socialist shit of "you did not build it" is what the Communist assholes use justify to stealing money from the rich and and Commie Bernie is the Communist candidate.

Of course you have forgotten that Commie Bernie, Pocahontas, Debbie Downer, Queer Peteboi, Creepy Joe and that idiot Commie Bernie have never crated a job in their life and have been living off the hard work of Taxpayers, haven't you?

You are always confused about things like this, aren't you?

 

[joaquinmiller]

Now you are just spouting stupid shit.

The CRA never mandated mortgages given to folks who couldn't pay them back. The surge of subprime mortgages in 2003/4 originated in mortgage farms not regulated by the CRA. The CRA, one more time, had nothing to do with the crash of 2008, and saying otherwise is the sign of an economic illiterate.

Okay, you guys keep telling yourself that. You keep telling yourself that the banks didn't create the mortgage farms because they were terrified of being sued by some Sharpton type when they told someone you can't count welfare as income.

Again, arguing for deficit reduction in 2011, in a deeply depressed economy, is the sign of an economic illiterate. The fact that entitlements need to be tackled at some time in the future doesn't change that one whit, and engaging in that debate in a deeply depressed economy is another sign of an economic illiterate.

But that's the problem. There's always an excuse about why we can't tackle the problem "now", and we have to tackle it "in the future".

It doesn't matter how Obama built that winning coalition in 2008, and again, in widely different circumstances, in 2012: The point is, the next Dem has to build a coalition of at least the same extend as Obama did. Bloomberg is probably not the person to do that. "Suburban women" is not a coalition, and a record repugnant to other groups crucial for any Democratic coalition spells doom. And, BTW, nothing portends suburban mom's support quite like creating a work environment hostile to women, and then shutting them up with NDAs.

Most sensible people realize that PoundMeToo and the crazy nut who claims "Sexual Harassment" when she's an underperformer doesn't reflect most women. Most women can actually take a joke and know what the back and forth of an office is like.

But, please, please, please, go ahead and nominate Commie Bernie, who appeals to your "Coalition". He'll be McGovern 2.0. Remember George McGovern? Mr. Abortion, Amnesty and Acid? The guy who lost 49 states to Tricky Dick.

Banks were never forced to make loans to unqualified applicants. The Fed was shoveling money out the door as fast as possible, and Hank Paulsen said the biggest problems were sub-prime loans issued in the early 2000's, and the subsequent, unaffordable adjustments to those interest rates. Those loans were bundled with others, of course, for derivative sales. A lot went into crashing the housing market, but the CRA wasn't part of it.

If you were alive at the time, and had a discernible credit rating, you were bombarded with mortgage and re-fi loan offers. Most of those afforded the opportunity to cash out some equity. Plenty did, spending that equity in ways that pumped up the economy, but left the borrower underwater when the crash came.

It's a sad attempt to shift blame to poor people, when one claims banks were forced to make bad loans. Buncha b.s.

No, the banks aren't claiming that. The banks want to keep doing that. You do realize that the "sub-prime" loans are the ones that went to poor people, right? The ones who shouldn't have gotten ANY kind of loan because they didn't have the income. BOTH Parties patted themselves on the back for putting people into houses they couldn't afford.

Bullshit. Open the pdf

Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Middle Class

We provide new analysis on the debt dynamics leading up to the financial crisis, which runs counter to the previous interpretation that large distortions in the supply of credit to low-income borrowers set off a housing bubble and was primarily responsible for the crash. We show that between 2002 and 2006 mortgage origination increased proportionally across the whole income distribution, not just for low-income borrowers. While mortgage credit origination to all income groups expanded significantly between 2002 and 2006, the majority of purchase mortgages by value were originated for middle class and high-income segments of the population even at the peak of the boom, in line with prior years. Similarly, we show that the share of originations to low- versus high-credit-score borrowers remained largely stable across the pre-crisis period. While the pace of origination rose in low-income zip codes, this increase translates into small changes in the overall distribution of credit, given that it starts from a low base (as borrowers in these zip codes obtain fewer and significantly smaller mortgages on average). 2 These results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that large distortions in the supply of credit to poor or marginal borrowers drove the house price increases and the subsequent crash in the mortgage market.

 

[JoeB131]

Really, if he can't deal with Senator-Professor Warren, how do you expect him to deal with Trump, or Putin, for that matter? If he has better, more important things to do with his time than to prepare for the office he seeks, and to meet the requirements to attain it, he shouldn't be running. "So what?" isn't an argument, it's a declaration of bankruptcy.

Perhaps more importantly, if he didn't have the time to prepare for the debate, he should not have shown up until he actually is prepared. My assessment would be, he thought he was prepared when he was not, and that means that his own self-assessment is thoroughly flawed, and the folks who advise him are not prepared to tell him otherwise. All bad signs. You can't see any?

You mean he couldn't evolve in a couple of weeks into a slimy politician?

The only bad sign I see is that dumbfucks are going to put a Socialist like Commie Bernie up and then scratch their big monkey craniums wondering how Trump got a second term.

 

[JoeB131]

Bullshit. Open the pdf

Why bother? You guys keep pretending the government micro-managing the private market wasn't a factor. And I blame BOTH parties for this. No CRA< most of these people wouldn't have gotten loans and the demand for housing wouldn't have increased.

Not to worry, your Boy Commie Bernie has a solution. I just heard about this shit today. He wants to tax house flippers 25% if they sell their house within 5 years.

 

[Dick Foster]

Dumb.

We don’t need your summary, when it mimics the establishment’s. You add nothing. One would think you would have learned something about the establishment these past 30-40 years, but no.

The establishment is there for a reason. But don't worry, the CIA is tracking you with that chip they put in your ass.

Does anyone have anything intelligent to add to the thread?

I do, they're all damn commies!
Sorry I just couldn't resist.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Bullshit. Open the pdf

Why bother? You guys keep pretending the government micro-managing the private market wasn't a factor. And I blame BOTH parties for this. No CRA< most of these people wouldn't have gotten loans and the demand for housing wouldn't have increased.

Not to worry, your Boy Commie Bernie has a solution. I just heard about this shit today. He wants to tax house flippers 25% if they sell their house within 5 years.

He's not my boy, and I don't deny the government played a big role in the meltdown - primarily through Fannie and Freddie. Fed policy encouraged second homes and spec building, which contributed to the 18 million empty houses in America at the depth of the bust. But you're right - why bother? You already know what I think well enough to make your argument and mine.

I'm sure you recall when there was a distinction between long- and short-term capital gains. with the aim of promoting investment as opposed to gambling. I don't think many people would consider 5 years to be "flipping". 5 years is more along the lines of 'what the fuck did I do?'

 

[Olde Europe]

He's not my boy, and I don't deny the government played a big role in the meltdown - primarily through Fannie and Freddie. Fed policy encouraged second homes and spec building, which contributed to the 18 million empty houses in America at the depth of the bust. But you're right - why bother? You already know what I think well enough to make your argument and mine.

I'm sure you recall when there was a distinction between long- and short-term capital gains. with the aim of promoting investment as opposed to gambling. I don't think many people would consider 5 years to be "flipping". 5 years is more along the lines of 'what the fuck did I do?'

Freddie and Fannie were late in the game, and were as little at the root of the meltdown as was the CRA. The biggest government contributions were unregulated derivatives, allowing over-leveraged banks, lack of oversight over mortgage originators, and allowing the systematic error of making rating agencies dependent on the customers whose products they rate. Not to mention, the absence of accountability up and down the financial food chain since the glorious days of Reagan. Then came baby Bush and prevented States Attorneys General from going after the newly invented forms of predatory lending.

No need to answer, who has your support?

 

[joaquinmiller]

Bernie's too old, and he's had a heart attack, for Christ's sake. He has no business running for President. It's an old man's ego trip. Speaking of which, go home, Joe. Go home, give the occasional speech, go kiss the blarney stone. You're too yesterday. Lizbeth? You're too old, too,but you still come in second, and that's cold fucking comfort. Pete? You're too young and your husband will make a lousy first lady/man/person. Come back with some more seasoning.

Amy Klobuchar, come here you truck-driving, mean boss, 59 and just the right damn age, progressive enough woman. You're my man. You'll fix ohwhatabadboyamI Trump with the evil eye and diss him with that Midwestern bray And call Stacy Abrams. The two of you would win. Sure, I say that knowing you'll probably be out of the race in 3 weeks, but I'm with you 'til then.

 

[joaquinmiller]

He's not my boy, and I don't deny the government played a big role in the meltdown - primarily through Fannie and Freddie. Fed policy encouraged second homes and spec building, which contributed to the 18 million empty houses in America at the depth of the bust. But you're right - why bother? You already know what I think well enough to make your argument and mine.

I'm sure you recall when there was a distinction between long- and short-term capital gains. with the aim of promoting investment as opposed to gambling. I don't think many people would consider 5 years to be "flipping". 5 years is more along the lines of 'what the fuck did I do?'

Freddie and Fannie were late in the game, and were as little at the root of the meltdown as was the CRA. The biggest government contributions were unregulated derivatives, allowing over-leveraged banks, lack of oversight over mortgage originators, and allowing the systematic error of making rating agencies dependent on the customers whose products they rate. Not to mention, the absence of accountability up and down the financial food chain since the glorious days of Reagan. Then came baby Bush and prevented States Attorneys General from going after the newly invented forms of predatory lending.

No need to answer, who has your support?

I agree as to derivatives and out-of-control, over-leveraged banks - which sprang up on every corner, btw. It wasn't just commercial banks. F and F deserve blame for guaranteeing too many mortgages. I bought a couple of properties from Fannie.

(Edit - Viewing the items you mention as a lack of needed gov't interference.)

Klobuchar. I like her.

 

[Olde Europe]

He's not my boy, and I don't deny the government played a big role in the meltdown - primarily through Fannie and Freddie. Fed policy encouraged second homes and spec building, which contributed to the 18 million empty houses in America at the depth of the bust. But you're right - why bother? You already know what I think well enough to make your argument and mine.

I'm sure you recall when there was a distinction between long- and short-term capital gains. with the aim of promoting investment as opposed to gambling. I don't think many people would consider 5 years to be "flipping". 5 years is more along the lines of 'what the fuck did I do?'

Freddie and Fannie were late in the game, and were as little at the root of the meltdown as was the CRA. The biggest government contributions were unregulated derivatives, allowing over-leveraged banks, lack of oversight over mortgage originators, and allowing the systematic error of making rating agencies dependent on the customers whose products they rate. Not to mention, the absence of accountability up and down the financial food chain since the glorious days of Reagan. Then came baby Bush and prevented States Attorneys General from going after the newly invented forms of predatory lending.

No need to answer, who has your support?

I agree as to derivatives and out-of-control, over-leveraged banks - which sprang up on every corner, btw. It wasn't just commercial banks. F and F deserve blame for guaranteeing too many mortgages. I bought a couple of properties from Fannie.

Klobuchar. I like her.

Of course, F&F deserve blame (not least for getting themselves into a position so precarious taxpayers had to bail them out), but they were not "at the root" of the meltdown.

Yeah, I am starting to get around to Klobuchar, but for the time being I am rooting for Senator-Professor Liz.

Doesn't the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, (37), entering the main field of presidential hopefuls head-to-head with the front runner on delegate counts after two contests, and gay, strike you as a story about as implausible as the rise of Obama in 2008? Yeah, needs seasoning, but that's a fascinating story.

 

[joaquinmiller]

He's not my boy, and I don't deny the government played a big role in the meltdown - primarily through Fannie and Freddie. Fed policy encouraged second homes and spec building, which contributed to the 18 million empty houses in America at the depth of the bust. But you're right - why bother? You already know what I think well enough to make your argument and mine.

I'm sure you recall when there was a distinction between long- and short-term capital gains. with the aim of promoting investment as opposed to gambling. I don't think many people would consider 5 years to be "flipping". 5 years is more along the lines of 'what the fuck did I do?'

Freddie and Fannie were late in the game, and were as little at the root of the meltdown as was the CRA. The biggest government contributions were unregulated derivatives, allowing over-leveraged banks, lack of oversight over mortgage originators, and allowing the systematic error of making rating agencies dependent on the customers whose products they rate. Not to mention, the absence of accountability up and down the financial food chain since the glorious days of Reagan. Then came baby Bush and prevented States Attorneys General from going after the newly invented forms of predatory lending.

No need to answer, who has your support?

I agree as to derivatives and out-of-control, over-leveraged banks - which sprang up on every corner, btw. It wasn't just commercial banks. F and F deserve blame for guaranteeing too many mortgages. I bought a couple of properties from Fannie.

Klobuchar. I like her.

Of course, F&F deserve blame (not least for getting themselves into a position so precarious taxpayers had to bail them out), but they were not "at the root" of the meltdown.

Yeah, I am starting to get around to Klobuchar, but for the time being I am rooting for Senator-Professor Liz.

Doesn't the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, (37), entering the main field of presidential hopefuls head-to-head with the front runner on delegate counts after two contests, and gay, strike you as a story about as implausible as the rise of Obama in 2008? Yeah, needs seasoning, but that's a fascinating story.

He's very impressive - his intelligence and poise are at the top of the field, but his shortcoming in mass appeal, on this date, rule him out, I think. Warren was maybe my initial choice, but I soured a bit when she waffled on healthcare cost/funding. It made her weaker as a candidate. She's still my second choice.

Klobuchar is pragmatic enough to do a good job, I think.