Page 123 of 147 FirstFirst ... 2373113121122123124125133 ... LastLast
Results 1,221 to 1,230 of 1467

Thread: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

  1. #1221
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Actually SS taxes went up on everyone. The tax cuts enacted under Bush...ready to expire.
    Really. So where does the money come from? Does it come from taxpayers? Who can stimulate the economy better with it in THEIR pocket? Winning an election doesnt win an argument. So did republicans win the argument in 2010?


    His first responsibility is to govern capably and not play politics first and govern second. Ask anyone but you die hard liberals which way hes governing and its politician first, country second.



    Democrats object to even slowing the rate of spending. They sure arent making any cuts. I find it hilarious that Romney ran on closing loopholes and now democrats are suddenly embracing that as a way of raising revenue. I thought you werent going for any GOP ideas? As for taxes, the AHCA is a big tax, the attempts to raise gas taxes, changing SS taxes, etc etc.



    You are the alternative? Id rather be able to think for myself.
    Actually SS taxes went up on everyone. The tax cuts enacted under Bush...ready to expire.
    Not for me. But then I'm retired. The tax cuts enacted under Bush...have been kept for 98% of the people. They'v been extended.

    Really. So where does the money come from? Does it come from taxpayers? Who can stimulate the economy better with it in THEIR pocket? Winning an election doesnt win an argument. So did republicans win the argument in 2010?
    We're coming out of recession. The more money injected into the economy, the more jobs are created. We have jobs bills that don't get voted on. And yes it comes from taxpayers. And in these circumstances that money put back into the economy is needed. We could invest in our infrastructure and rebuild the entire country and put millions to work, who will spend the money they are making on TV's or computers, or cloths or food, or a new car, get them off food stamps, have them paying taxes. An economy requires spending to move goods and services. That demand opens the doors for more jobs. And jobs are the most important issue rigth now. And yes, the Republicans did win in 2010. Your problem was that the people that got elected were set against governing, and the people lost their infatuation with what you offered in 2010. So you lost in 2012. When Repubs won in 2010, Obama had to make concessions to that decision. Now that table has turned.

    His first responsibility is to govern capably and not play politics first and govern second. Ask anyone but you die hard liberals which way hes governing and its politician first, country second.
    Which he does. That's why he got reelected. Who am I going to ask about this? A Conservative?? What you may think about his governing is a minority viewpoint. His approval ratings are in the upper 50% range. The GOP?? in the tank. And Congress is about 10%. The majority of the country agrees with him. He's not going to worry about appeasing a minority in this country that wants to block everything he does.

    Democrats object to even slowing the rate of spending.
    No they don't. In fact Obama has slowed the rate of spending more than anyone in the past 60 years.

    I find it hilarious that Romney ran on closing loopholes and now democrats are suddenly embracing that as a way of raising revenue.
    Then you have a short memory. Obama was calling for closing the loopholes and deductions on Corporat jets, and yachts back in 2011. It was never just raising taxes on the top 2%. The loopholes were part of it. Romney capitulated on that because he knew he didn't have a winning hand.

    I thought you werent going for any GOP ideas?
    It wasn't a GOP idea. It goes back to 2011.

    Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 04:00 PM PDT.
    Obama calls for White House debt meeting on Thursday; Boehner opens door on loopholes?

    Obama: GOP tax breaks for corporate jets, closing loopholes hold up debt ceiling talks
    Washington : DC : USA | Jun 30, 2011 at 6:54 AM PDT

    Obama said; "It would be nice if we could keep every tax break there is, but we've got to make some tough choices here if we want to reduce our deficit. And if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we've got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. That means we've got to stop funding certain grants for medical research. That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. Those are the choices we have to make."

    Republicans hadn't even considered this at that point.

    You are the alternative? Id rather be able to think for myself.
    But you don't. We already know that other guy doesn't. He needs talking points. So you would be a conservative because it's better than being a person that question conservatism? Sounds like you're an ideologue to the bone. Do you even question your beliefs? I mean...there is no justification for being a conservative, not that they don't try with appeals to authority like the other guy, or appeals to tradition. But those are not logically valid ideas for a justification for an ideology. So what is it based on? Do you even know? How can I take somebody seriously when they don't even know why they believe what they believe?
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  2. #1222
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    I might read this if it were a Xyphlin post. But you?

    This is a tactic known as the kitchen sink. Toss up so much crap that its difficult to refute point by point because there are endless rhetorical talking points, evasions and outright lies. If you cant say it in 100 words, dont expect it to get read---its a rant past that. Underlined paragraph in particular qualifies, one solid paragraph of text full of evasions and ranting ideology. God, I wish we could thumbs down posts.

    Of course it is. Which is exactly how I'm going to respond to a battery of talking points. The only difference is that these are MY thoughts. Not something given to me.

    Toss up so much crap that its difficult to refute point by point because there are endless rhetorical talking points, evasions and outright lies.
    That's what talking points do. I responded to several of his. But mine aren't talking points. They're my own and they're my view of the psychology and tactics of conservatives. I told our friend that I'm not going to engage in a back and forth over who can gather the most talking points riddled with distorted data to try and prove a point. Would you accept a series of those from me? I highly doubt it. The part you underlined came from a book that I wrote. If you have something to say that's an original thought, then skip the provided talking points and make your case. Otherwise, it's amateur hour. Use some reason and logic and historical reference to make your case.

    If you cant say it in 100 words, dont expect it to get read---its a rant past that.
    I didn't ask you to read it. It wasn't addressed to you. But since you picked up on it, you should know by now that I don't concern myself with your opinion or anybody's for that matter. That guy decided to post a bunch of crap. He claimed I wouldn't engage him. Well, there you have it. Consider yourselves engaged. If you can't handle what the response is then find a thread where people like short quips and insults. I don't. I learned how to express my views a long time ago.

    Underlined paragraph in particular qualifies, one solid paragraph of text full of evasions and ranting ideology.
    Your reading comprehension is weak. It's not an ideology. It's a critique of one. Know the difference. I never offered any ideology nor defended one in that paragraph. I don't subscribe to them. They're all false. Including yours.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  3. #1223
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Have you ever been to South Africa ? I have.

    The ANC is a socialist political party, a terrorist organization during the 70's and 80's.
    Socialism is not defined as anything you dislike. Furthermore, my parents have been there and it's HARDLY a Socialist country. It's questionable if the government even works in parts of the country.

    I'm kind of lazy today so I apologize for using Wikipedia, Wiki should never really be used as a source but as a starting point for further research.

    >" The African National Congress (ANC) is South Africa's governing political party, supported by its Tripartite Alliance with the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP), "< African National Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The terrorist war that the ANC waged back in 60's, 70's and 80's was just one battle of the Cold War. We lost that one depending on whos side you were supporting, the western allies or the Soviets. It was the Soviet Union who were supporting the ANC back during the Cold War.
    The Cold War is not the best tool in which to define political ideologies. The US and Russia switched sides in Mozambique purely because the other side started to support one faction. The Cold War made strange bedfellows.

    What did the ANC do as a government that was Socialist? And don't go about defining Socialism as anything you don't like.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #1224
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,253

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Yes, it was. You are deliberately ignoring that the vast majority of NPLs were from non-covered banks. While it can be argued that banks not within the framework adopted poor lending standards, that is STILL the banks' fault for doing so. While it can also be argued that the GSEs created incentives by buying up mortgages and securtizing them, many banks themselves securitized bad loans as well. You are ignoring the simple fact that non-covered bank originated loans make up the vast majority of NPLs. Not the covered banks that fell under HUD and the CRA. No one made non-covered banks to make NINJA loans. They freely did it themselves. Sure, the GSEs created a moral hazard, but they never forced non-covered banks to originate the vast majority of NPLs that exist today.

    Amusing coming from you.
    I don't know why Adagio is giving you a like. Your rebut was irrelevant and completely missed the point and wrong. Oh wait.....now I know why he gave you a like....lol....Wow.

    And before either of you two go into your pathetic generic Bush Blame let me add the following..

    2001 April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

    2002 May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    January: 2003 Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

    February: 20030The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

    September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

    September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

    November: 20030Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.”

    February: 2004 The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator

    February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.”

    April: 2005 Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.”

    February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities perform their public mission successfully.”

    ......and on and on. The documented evidence of the Bush administration trying to get the GSEs under control is extensive so enough with the retarded Bush Blame. I can post more if you need me too.

    And exactly why Child would a bank lower their lending Standards on their own with out being forced to by a corrupt Clinton administration ? What's in it for them ? Bankruptcy ? Because prior to the HUD mandates the GSE's wouldn't touch that kind of loan with a 10 foot pole.

    Next, from 1993 to 1998 Clinton replaced the GSEs CEO's, and their second in charge and over half of their board of directors..Franklin Raines anyone ? Oh he made millions.

    1995 President Clinton introduced his National Homeownership Strategy, which included the expansion of Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) and changed CRA compliance from a "process" oriented law to a law that focused on results.....for you two that means they HAD TO MAKE LOANS to comply to expanded and enforced CRA regulations.

    Oh wait, a Fantastic quote from Clinton...“Our home ownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation" LOL !!! One extra cent huh ? He was off a few trillion wasn't he ?

    Two more since I'm posting actual quotes....documented History unrevised by corrupt Liberals.

    “I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” – Former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), September 25, 2008

    “Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.” – Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL), September 30, 2008

    In 1989, only 1 in 230 homebuyers made a down payment of 3 percent or less by 2007, it was 1 in 3. By 2008 74% of sub-prime and low quality loans were on the books of Govt backed or regulated government agencies. That's the GSE's, FHA etc.

    The regulations that forced the GSEs to buy up trillions in bad debt were in Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (the “GSE Act”). Under Clinton.

    The quotas spelled out that INITIALLY 30 percent of the GSEs’ mortgage purchases had to be loans that were made to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers. During the Clinton administration, HUD increased this quota to 42 percent in 1995 and 50 percent in 2000. HUD mandated quotas increased to 55% under Bush with sub quotas added that mandated the buying of mortgages from borrowers who were at or below the median income by 80%, Andrew Cuomo was the HUD secretary when he committed and extra 2 trillion to the buying up of "affordable housing" debt.

    Here you two, learn something...This is a HUD dispatch from 2000

    "Because the GSEs have a funding advantage over other market participants, they have the ability to under price their competitors and increase their market share. This advantage, as has been the case in the prime market, could allow the GSEs to eventually play a significant role in the subprime market. As the GSEs become more comfortable with subprime lending, the line between what today is considered a subprime loan versus a prime loan will likely deteriorate, making expansion by the GSEs look more like an increase in the prime market."....ouch.


    One of CRA's decrees was that banks had a "affirmative obligation" to make loans to the people in its community. Groups like ACORN and other radical inner cities activist argued for an expansion of CRA mandates and Clinton was all too happy to comply. " Affirmative Obligations "????

    ACORN Housing had a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York. Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America had a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America. The New Jersey Citizen Action had a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance" "CRA is the backbone of everything we do "

    After Clintons 1995 EXECUTIVE ORDER that basically put CRA on steroids he moved to force those mandated lax ending standards on the GSE's. From the NYT..

    “In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of [subprime] lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.”

    Its actually right on the money isn't it. For the NYT that's unusual. Usually they just unleash Paul Krugman, the old fat cat lady trapped in a frumpy bearded mans body.

    Clinton with the Community Development Act of 1992 shifted the moral hazard to the tax payer of ALL low quality, sub-prime, alt-a loans, etc. From that day, anybody could originate a crap loan and pawn it off to a all to willing Government Service Enterprise and use the "loose under writing standards " mandated and enforced by Clinton to qualify any borrower.

    The 1994 HUD ACT called for "“financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home or to make the payments.”

    "A 1997 Urban Institute report found that local and regional lenders seemed more willing than the GSEs to serve creditworthy low- to moderate-income and minority applicants. After this, Fannie and Freddie modified their automated underwriting systems to accept loans with characteristics that they had previously rejected. This opened the way for large numbers of nontraditional and sub-prime mortgages. These did not necessarily come from traditional banks, lending under the CRA, but from lenders like Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest sub-prime and nontraditional mortgage lender and a firm that would become infamous for consistently pushing the envelope on acceptable underwriting standards."
    The Banks that wouldn't play ball like Wells FARGO were extorted by the DOJ's eric holder.

    So it's clear now to the both of you. That the 2008 Sub-Prime collapse was the brain child of your dear President CLINTON and his cronies that he put into place as the CEO's of the GSEs from 1993 to 1998. Those Cronies ? Got millions in bonus's by running our Country into the ground. Democrats, Liberals....as corrupt as they come. But you guys......blame the banks.

    And Child if your going to attempt to rebut ANY of my post, have the decency to at least be prepared with relevant points and honest data. Now slink away defeated and marginalized and go blame the banks and Bush where you can get away with it. Like at the Democrat Under Ground or the Disney Channel's WebSite.
    The New Democratic Party Slogan :

    " Return to Power By Any Means Necessary "

  5. #1225
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    The top 1% of earners already pay 38% of all federal income taxes.
    And they're still millionairs??? Wow! The way you hear them cry all the time, you'd think wouldn't be able to afford food on their table or a roof over their head.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  6. #1226
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    I might read this if it were a Xyphlin post. But you?

    This is a tactic known as the kitchen sink. Toss up so much crap that its difficult to refute point by point because there are endless rhetorical talking points, evasions and outright lies. If you cant say it in 100 words, dont expect it to get read---its a rant past that. Underlined paragraph in particular qualifies, one solid paragraph of text full of evasions and ranting ideology. God, I wish we could thumbs down posts.
    BTW...why are you answering for him? Did he lose his talking points?
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  7. #1227
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    LOL both sides hated it. The idea was to have something so bad both sides would reach an agreement to get around it. Your sense of denial is unbelievably strong.
    The idea was to have something so bad both sides would reach an agreement to get around it.
    You didn't know that? Really?
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  8. #1228
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Socialism is not defined as anything you dislike. Furthermore, my parents have been there and it's HARDLY a Socialist country. It's questionable if the government even works in parts of the country.



    The Cold War is not the best tool in which to define political ideologies. The US and Russia switched sides in Mozambique purely because the other side started to support one faction. The Cold War made strange bedfellows.

    What did the ANC do as a government that was Socialist? And don't go about defining Socialism as anything you don't like.
    I didn't say that South Africa was a socialist country, I said the ANC were socialist, internationalist socialist. Communist are internationalist socialist, Where as Nazis are also socialist but they are nationalist socialist.

    Barack Obama is a socialist but he hasn't yet turned America in to an internationalist socialist country. He has a little problem with the Constitution. As we have seen over the past four years, Obama has ignored the Constitution, has refused to show leadership and cross the aisle in Congress and compromise, has misused Executive Order Privilege to bypass Congress, has used the U.S. military for liberal social engineering experimentation.

    In Barck Obama's own words in his book, "Dreams From My Father" Obama said "I never looked upon my self as being an American but as an internationalist."

    The first time I visited South Africa was in 1975. That's during apartheid. In 1975 I met a girl at Long Beach State University who was attending college on a student visa from Rhodesia. Well we hooked up and became engaged. In 75 I traveled to Rhodesia to meet her parents via South Africa. They owned a large cattle ranch in Rhodesia.

    A year later she returned home during Christmas vacation in 1976. She was raped and murdered by Communist terrorist, Her mother was raped and murdered by Communist terrorist. Her father was murdered by Communist terrorist. The same terrorist who were affiliated with the ANC and today rule Zimbabwe.

    I visited South Africa again in the early 1990's after apartheid. Not a safe place at all. The middle class including the black middle class all live behind walled communities where the cost of living includes paying for armed mercenaries providing perimeter security.

    In South Africa most of the cars are European, mostly German or British, All have sun roofs. No one drives with the sun roof open in South Africa, especially if your a woman. If you make that mistake your very likely the be dragged out of your car through the sun roof and raped.

    There are times when some people aren't ready for freedom. Africa today is a perfect example where former European colonies were never prepared for independence and freedom. The entire African continent is a basket case today.

    The same can be said about the Arab Spring that Obama supported. The entire Middle East and North Africa are complete basket cases today. and Obama's foreign policies are responsible.

    Liberals hate me because I have an animosity towards socialist.. #### them them. All you have to look at the 100 MILLION people who have been murdered by internationalist socialist.
    Last edited by APACHERAT; 02-23-13 at 01:22 AM.

  9. #1229
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    And Child if your going to attempt to rebut ANY of my post, have the decency to at least be prepared with relevant points and honest data. Now slink away defeated and marginalized and go blame the banks and Bush where you can get away with it. Like at the Democrat Under Ground or the Disney Channel's WebSite.

    "A 1997 Urban Institute report found that local and regional lenders seemed more willing than the GSEs to serve creditworthy low- to moderate-income and minority applicants. After this, Fannie and Freddie modified their automated underwriting systems to accept loans with characteristics that they had previously rejected. This opened the way for large numbers of nontraditional and sub-prime mortgages. These did not necessarily come from traditional banks, lending under the CRA, but from lenders like Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest sub-prime and nontraditional mortgage lender and a firm that would become infamous for consistently pushing the envelope on acceptable underwriting standards."
    The Banks that wouldn't play ball like Wells FARGO were extorted by the DOJ's eric holder.
    Your bit was just opinion. And your own link STATES that local and regional lenders were themselves making the choices to lend to low credit scoring people. Oops.

    No one forced the banks to partake in that system.
    No one forced the local and regionals to lower their criteria.

    Just as I stated. Thanks for providing an article that refutes your own argument.

    Let's recap.

    Your entire argument blames the HUD and CRA via the GSEs for the mess. While I do not contest that the GSEs created serious mortal hazard here, you are deliberately ignoring the key point made.

    My argument relies upon the fact that the vast majority of NPLs came from non-covered, non-CRA banks outside of HUD and the CRA.

    How does your argument, which blames CRA, HUD, GSEs and covered banks, which fyi, did not originate the vast majority of NPLs refute my argument?

    You are explicitly blaming the originators of a small portion of NPLs for the mess while exonerating the banks that actually did originate the Lion's Share of NPLs.

    In an analogy, you are saying that the small bank robber who stole 10% of the bank's assets actually caused the bank to fail, not the inside embezzler who stole 90% of the assets.
    Last edited by obvious Child; 02-23-13 at 01:25 AM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #1230
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    I didn't say that South Africa was a socialist country, I said the ANC were socialist, internationalist socialist. Communist are internationalist socialist, Where as Nazis are also socialist but they are nationalist socialist.
    Communists don't have a state. Second, what did the ANC do that was Socialist?

    You are again defining Socialism as anything you don't like.

    Barack Obama is a socialist but he hasn't yet turned America in to an internationalist socialist country. He has a little problem with the Constitution. As we have seen over the past four years, Obama has ignored the Constitution, has refused to show leadership and cross the aisle in Congress and compromise, has misused Executive Order Privilege to bypass Congress, has used the U.S. military for liberal social engineering experimentation.
    Every President since Washington has ignored the Constitution. And Obama is merely doing the same EO crap that Bush did. Wrong, but hardly without precedent. As for leadership and compromise, that is your view, one not shared by actual facts. Especially considering that Obama has frankly ripped off Republican idea after Republican idea. As I've been saying since 2009, Obama is Bush's 3rd and now 4th term.

    In Barck Obama's own words in his book, "Dreams From My Father" Obama said "I never looked upon my self as being an American but as an internationalist."

    The first time I visited South Africa was in 1975. That's during apartheid. In 1975 I met a girl at Long Beach State University who was attending college on a student visa from Rhodesia. Well we hooked up and became engaged. In 75 I traveled to Rhodesia to meet her parents via South Africa. They owned a large cattle ranch in Rhodesia.

    A year later she returned home during Christmas vacation in 1976. She was raped and murdered by Communist terrorist, Her mother was raped and murdered by Communist terrorist. Her father was murdered by Communist terrorist. The same terrorist who were affiliated with the ANC and today rule Zimbabwe.
    How does this prove they are Socialist? I don't disagree that South Africa is run by thugs and has serious order problems. I did in fact allude to that.

    I visited South Africa again in the early 1990's after apartheid. Not a safe place at all. The middle class including the black middle class all live behind walled communities where the cost of living includes paying for armed mercenaries providing perimeter security.

    In South Africa most of the cars are European, mostly German or British, All have sun roofs. No one drives with the sun roof open in South Africa, especially if your a woman. If you make that mistake your very likely the be dragged out of your car through the sun roof and raped.

    There are times when some people aren't ready for freedom. Africa today is a perfect example where former European colonies were never prepared for independence and freedom. The entire African continent is a basket case today.
    And this is related to the discussion how?

    The same can be said about the Arab Spring that Obama supported. The entire Middle East and North Africa are complete basket cases today. and Obama's foreign policies are responsible.
    Come again? The Middle East has been a basket case since the French and English drew lines in the sand and created countries from nothing. The notion that it's Obama's fault they are messed up ignores their entire history. And Iran's rise to power is directly the fault of the Bush Invasion.

    What makes you think that supporting dictators would have led to better outcomes? You would have backed Obama as he let Quaddafi commit millions of brutal murders? You would have backed Obama as he sent in American troops to shoot Egyptian protestors? The Egyptian Army itself was not going to put down the revolution. Like the Russians, they would not fire upon their own people. And the secret police was simply too small to deal with a nation wide revolution. So you would have supported sending American troops to shoot Egyptian protestors? You would have had us support a massacre that would make Sebrenica look small?

    Name me the actual Obama policy that is causing their mess. Try.

    Liberals hate me because I have an animosity towards socialist.. #### them them. All you have to look at the 100 MILLION people who have been murdered by internationalist socialist.
    Your drama is hardly helping your cause.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •