• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

1. Thats not important. The percentage of failures is whats important. CRA driven loans had a substantially higher fail rate.

That is absolute bull****. The exact opposite is true, as mentioned in several of the reports linked above.

2. Not true. Did you read the article I cited? WaMu wrote $1 billion and caved. BofA showed the 3% of CRA regulated loans were causing 29% of their loan failures. You can twist the metrics to make it appear that CRA regulated banks and loans did perform better but reality is that did not.

Umm, you can't compare CRA regulated to non-CRA regulated by looking only at CRA regulated loans. I should think that's fairly obvious. Bofa's real problem is that it took over Countrywide -- a non-regulated lender that issued FAR more, and far worse, subprime loans.

3. Again reading comprehension---if you mandate targets for fed prime rates, banks will comply.

I have no idea what you're on about there. It has nothing to do with my point No. 3, which is that, with or without CRA, virtually anyone could get a subprime mortgage. The government didn't have to twist arms to get lenders to lend to poor folks. Private lenders were begging them to take out mortgages.

Stop relying on sources based only in government (which wants more than anything to sweep this under the rug) and far left sites that want to blame it on the right. Look at sites that truly want to understand the root causes and avoid them in the future. Which you decidedly are not doing.

Well, I've posted four good sources up until now while you're relying on a single article from a pro-business, pro-banking magazine. I think you'll get a clearer picture of the true situation if you don't swallow the bankers' line of bull**** whole.

My last point would be along these lines...if the CRA didnt cause the housing bubble and subsequent failure, what exactly did?
Dont go for predatory lending, being able to bundle loans to GSEs was part and parcel of the CRA scheme so banks had somewhere to dump loans.
Go look at a comparison of the pricing index versus home prices and you will see exactly when it leaps off and why the correction is taking so long.

There's no real mystery here. The bubble was created by a whole chain of interrelated events:

* loose money supply and large tax cuts create lots of liquidity;
* bank/insurance/derivatives deregulation provides a means for lenders to bust up loans and move them off their books, thus removing any incentive to perform due diligence;
* wrong-headed regulation of credit ratings firms creates financial incentive to issue ratings favorable to corporations, allowing junk-quality debt to be rated AAA;
* comptroller of the currency intercedes to prevent states from enforcing predatory lending laws;
* virtually no regulation of mortgage and real estate broker industry.

It was a recipe for disaster and CRA had nothing at all to do with it.
 
LOL...3091 adjusted to 2392. Thats a 22% adjustment. Along those lines they adjusted 2.6 trillion off Obamas debt in that chart. I think Ill just call shenanigans, seems like someone cooked the numb....oh wait its based on government figures isn't it? Of course its cooked.


-

Ah, I thought you said they were just adjusting for inflation?
 
You really have no idea what you are talking about as apparently your youth prevents you from knowing what Reagan inherited. It does appear that like far too many you will do anything to divert from the Obama record and I don't blame you. What you failed to recognize is that Reagan economy generated 17 million jobs, doubled GDP, and had a 60% increase in Income Tax revenue. Interesting how you tell only part of the story.

And we all know that Obama inherited a booming economy and a balanced budget.

What's all the debate about the president? Since when did either Reagan or Obama spend a dime without the approval of Congress?
 
Stop relying on sources based only in government (which wants more than anything to sweep this under the rug) and far left sites that want to blame it on the right. Look at sites that truly want to understand the root causes and avoid them in the future. Which you decidedly are not doing.

Sorry, I just can't let that one go as I noticed the blurb detailing the author of your cited article:

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Architects of Ruin: How Big Government Liberals Wrecked the Global Economy---And How They Will Do It Again If No One Stops Them (Harper, 2009).

Your ONE citation is to an article written by an obvious right wing partisan who's employed at a right wing think tank, and you seriously have to gall to attack my sources, which include one of the biggest newspaper publishers in the country, a team of government investigators tasked with studying the cause of the crisis, and the independent Federal Reserve investigation? :lol:

The Hoover Institution is influential in the American conservative and libertarian movements. The Institution has long been a place of scholarship for high-profile conservatives with government experience. A number of Hoover Institution fellows had connections to or held positions in the Bush administration and other Republican administrations. High-profile conservatives Edwin Meese, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and Amy Zegart are all Hoover Institution fellows.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what you're on about there. It has nothing to do with my point No. 3, which is that, with or without CRA, virtually anyone could get a subprime mortgage. The government didn't have to twist arms to get lenders to lend to poor folks. Private lenders were begging them to take out mortgages.

Because it put them into CRA compliance...

That is absolute bull****. The exact opposite is true, as mentioned in several of the reports linked above.
The ones from McClatchy and a government source? McC agenda, blame the right and big bizznezz, the government source doing anything at all to defelct blame from itself? Gotcha...great sources.

Tired of going round and round with you, you are trusting government sources to tell you the government ****ed up. Prolly isnt going to happen.

You want sources?
Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/pdf/pinto.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n2/cj30n2-12.pdf

Im going to say again, I love hearing how you dont trust the guys in the fed until it supports your arguments. Its an echo chamber; fed bureaucrats issue reports covering their ass and its pushed through by the left because they genuinely like the CRA for its stated goal, not its results.

I know the sources Im using are more to the right. There is a flood of left side sources citing fed employees. Again : they are covering their asses.
 
Either they are duping America, or not counting some people that absolutely be counted, or I don't know what, because I sure don't see the problem getting better.

They tinker around with these stats in DC to the point where no one is telling the truth any more. I am disappointed in the lies.

j-mac

Actually to some extent that is true. If you been out of work for 99 days I don't think they count you anymore, so unemplyoment will always techinically be higher. Getting to 7% is unrealistic anytime soon and even then it won't truly be 7%.
 
Because it put them into CRA compliance...


The ones from McClatchy and a government source? McC agenda, blame the right and big bizznezz, the government source doing anything at all to defelct blame from itself? Gotcha...great sources.

Tired of going round and round with you, you are trusting government sources to tell you the government ****ed up. Prolly isnt going to happen.

You want sources?
Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/pdf/pinto.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n2/cj30n2-12.pdf

Im going to say again, I love hearing how you dont trust the guys in the fed until it supports your arguments. Its an echo chamber; fed bureaucrats issue reports covering their ass and its pushed through by the left because they genuinely like the CRA for its stated goal, not its results.

I know the sources Im using are more to the right. There is a flood of left side sources citing fed employees. Again : they are covering their asses.

The sources you are using are out-and-out right wing mouthpieces. :lol:

In contrast, McClatchy is as mainstream as they come and Fed has absolutely no dog in the CRA fight.
 
It's nice talking point, but unfortunately it's completely false.



FT.com / UK - Oxley hits back at ideologues

You are actually going to argue that this bunch, particularly Frank did not protect FM and FM from reform ???

I'll not derail this thread, but I have dozens of quotes from this bunch as well as youtube videos of them saying they needed NO further regulation.
 
The sources you are using are out-and-out right wing mouthpieces. :lol:

In contrast, McClatchy is as mainstream as they come and Fed has absolutely no dog in the CRA fight.

Yeah, how dare he...........

He shouldn't link to sources from right wing mouthpieces that disagree with your sources from left wing mouthpieces.
 
The important thing about all soruces, left or right, is that they be accurate. Anything inaccurate, regardless of bias, should never be used. And any factual information they give, we should be able to see where they got and view the primary source of that information.

Just saying . . . . :coffeepap
 
You are actually going to argue that this bunch, particularly Frank did not protect FM and FM from reform ???

I'll not derail this thread, but I have dozens of quotes from this bunch as well as youtube videos of them saying they needed NO further regulation.

Feel free to post your quotes, but it is a historical fact that House actually passed a bill that would have reformed F&F with the help of Barney Frank.
 
Feel free to post your quotes, but it is a historical fact that House actually passed a bill that would have reformed F&F with the help of Barney Frank.

They've been posted hundreds of times. I'll be happy to, but I'm not going off-topic in this thread.
 
Feel free to post your quotes, but it is a historical fact that House actually passed a bill that would have reformed F&F with the help of Barney Frank.

Quotes, what people say as opposed to what was actually done? Now that's a serious bit of evidence. :coffeepap ;)
 
Yeah, how dare he...........

He shouldn't link to sources from right wing mouthpieces that disagree with your sources from left wing mouthpieces.

One of the four cites I used was a lefty site.
 
One of the four cites I used was a lefty site.

I think the definition of left wing is anything that disagrees with far right. ;) At least that is my understanding. :coffeepap
 
I think the definition of left wing is anything that disagrees with far right. ;) At least that is my understanding. :coffeepap

I think it's slightly different. Any news or opinion source that doesn't reliably espouse far right dogma is a lefty mouthpiece that's not to be trusted. In other words, there are no neutral sources: just partisan right wing and lefty propoganda. Sadly, the right wing punditry has effectively pulled off that brainwashing technique.
 
I think the definition of left wing is anything that disagrees with far right. ;) At least that is my understanding. :coffeepap

In your opinion, is DailyKos right wing or left wing??
 
I think it's slightly different. Any news or opinion source that doesn't reliably espouse far right dogma is a lefty mouthpiece that's not to be trusted. In other words, there are no neutral sources: just partisan right wing and lefty propoganda. Sadly, the right wing punditry has effectively pulled off that brainwashing technique.

Says the person that just posted this:

The sources you are using are out-and-out right wing mouthpieces.

Kinda like you posting a link to Media Matters ???

Know how to spell "hypocrite" ?
 
Says the person that just posted this:



Kinda like you posting a link to Media Matters ???

Know how to spell "hypocrite" ?

I think you missed the point. Clearly there are right wing sites, like Cato and American Progress, and left wing sites, like Thinkprogress and Media Matters. But there are ALSO sources that don't have an obvious political slant, like McClatchy and the Federal Reserve. And there is a universe of sources in between.

What the conservative punditocracy has succeeded in doing is to convince the true believers that hard right sources are the ONLY legitimate source of information, and the whole universe that isn't hard right is conspiring to mislead.
 
I think you missed the point. Clearly there are right wing sites, like Cato and American Progress, and left wing sites, like Thinkprogress and Media Matters. But there are ALSO sources that don't have an obvious political slant, like McClatchy and the Federal Reserve. And there is a universe of sources in between.

What the conservative punditocracy has succeeded in doing is to convince the true believers that hard right sources are the ONLY legitimate source of information, and the whole universe that isn't hard right is conspiring to mislead.

First, if you truly believed that, you wouldn't link to sites like Media Matters.

Second, McClatchey has a well known liberal bias.
 
In your opinion, is DailyKos right wing or left wing??

Doesn't matter. Only accuracy matters. And the mediam in which something appears on doesn't change the source. The source isn't the DailyKos, but what they linked.

But in either case, what matters is accuracy and not bais. Many biased sources, left and right, are accurate. I only dismiss a source when proven to be inaccurate.
 
I think it's slightly different. Any news or opinion source that doesn't reliably espouse far right dogma is a lefty mouthpiece that's not to be trusted. In other words, there are no neutral sources: just partisan right wing and lefty propoganda. Sadly, the right wing punditry has effectively pulled off that brainwashing technique.

Exactly. To few concern themselves with accuracy, but seek to see anything that doesn't affirm their belief system must be baised. It effectively allows them to dismiss anything, even from sources that tend to lean slight right of center.
 
Exactly. To few concern themselves with accuracy, but seek to see anything that doesn't affirm their belief system must be baised. It effectively allows them to dismiss anything, even from sources that tend to lean slight right of center.

The question is how can anyone support the liberal belief system and not support the foundation upon which this country was built which is individual wealth creation and equal opportunity, not equal outcome and no consequences for failure?
In the liberal world it is all about equal outcome and not just about equal opportunity. Liberals don't seem to understand the concept.

No one forced individuals to sign on contracts that had a escalator clause in them. People bought homes that they couldn't afford. Freddie and Fannie bought toxic mortgages. There are consequences for poor choices and that just doesn't fit the liberal ideology. Creating dependence is what liberals always do thus retaining power.
 
Back
Top Bottom