Originally Posted By Dabob2 <In post 178, I gave an example of one of Dabob's distortions.> If that's the best you can do, it's no wonder no one takes you seriously. (And yes, Mr. X, this appears to be the best he can do.) After you asserted that it was liberal pressure that led to institutions lending more to the poor, I and several other people said that sounded unlikely, and could you show it? Of course you couldn't, but said it was your opinion. Then you said - in direct response to our criticism - that is was "established" that political pressure led to the bill being passed. If you didn't mean to link the two, you should have been far more clear, because you asserted that in direct response to our criticisms of your earlier assertions. Now you offer the unbelievably lame rejoinder that "of course" there was political pressure to pass this bill because no bill passes without political pressure. Well no kidding, Sherlock. But you haven't shown that the political pressure to pass that particular bill (which isn't even particularly important in the grand scheme of things) came from liberals either. It's more likely it came from the financial institutions themselves who saw an untapped market they could gain. The plain fact is that you can't back up your original assertion, and now fall back on a "the water is wet" claim - "a bill passed because of political pressure" - as your "fact." It's all very transparent and only you could term being called on it a "distortion."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh And here we go again, arguing the argument instead of the subject, because you can't keep things straight. <After you asserted that it was liberal pressure that led to institutions lending more to the poor, I and several other people said that sounded unlikely, and could you show it?> See, here's another distortion. After I opined that liberal complaining led to increase loans to the poor (post #7), you claimed that there was no "political pressure to lend to the poor" (post 22). You later claimed this was a fact (34). Of course, even though you were claiming the fact, you asked me to provide evidence for something I didn't claim. Also notice that although you've claimed you always quote me exactly, in post 181 you paraphrase me. So please, stop distorting what I've said, and what you've said, and start discussing the issue.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And here we go again, arguing the argument instead of the subject, because you can't keep things straight.> No, because I insist on keeping things straight. <<After you asserted that it was liberal pressure that led to institutions lending more to the poor, I and several other people said that sounded unlikely, and could you show it?>> <See, here's another distortion. After I opined that liberal complaining led to increase loans to the poor (post #7), you claimed that there was no "political pressure to lend to the poor" (post 22). > THAT's a distortion. What I said was that the current crisis had nothing to do with political pressure to lend to the poor. Not that no pressure had ever been applied, but that whatever there might have been did not lead to the practices that led to the crisis. Get it straight, fercryingoutloud. <You later claimed this was a fact (34). Of course, even though you were claiming the fact, you asked me to provide evidence for something I didn't claim.> No, only for what you said had been "established." <Also notice that although you've claimed you always quote me exactly, in post 181 you paraphrase me.> I always quote you exactly in follow-up posts, not necessarily from 100 posts ago, as that would lead to even more ridiculously long posts. <So please, stop distorting what I've said, and what you've said, and start discussing the issue.> I HAVE discussed this issue, with others. I don't think you've offered one iota of discussion other than responding to me for days now. Hmmmmm...
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Again, please stop distorting what I've said, and what you've said, and start discussing the issue. Maybe you could start by providing the proof for what you claimed was a fact.
Originally Posted By Mr X You're the one doing the distorting, Douglas. See for yourself. You Wrote:After I opined that liberal complaining led to increase loans to the poor (post #7), you claimed that there was no "political pressure to lend to the poor" (post 22). But actually, in truth Dabob wrote: After the sales, they were happy to bundle these bad loans as "instruments" and sell them - getting their fees for THAT transaction as well as for the original sale. And that's how these defaults are affecting not just the original home lenders, but the rest of the financial sector as well. And it had nothing to do with political pressure to lend to the poor. Complete and utter distortion on your part. Perhaps you should apologize for that, since you are constantly accusing others of doing that to you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Perhaps you should apologize for that, since you are constantly accusing others of doing that to you.> You're correct, and I apologize. It wasn't until post 34 that Dabob asserted there wasn't political pressure to lend to the poor. In post 22, he made an assertion that he has not provided any evidence to support. And then he claimed it was fact, and only after that did he ask me to provide evidence to support what I had said, but only if it abided by his parameters.
Originally Posted By cmpaley *sigh* The perennial wee-wee waving contest. It's little wonder why I don't post in these parts anymore.
Originally Posted By woody This discussion is meaningless. I agree with DouglasDubh on this point, this is all opinion with no facts. Although DouglasDubh did not supply any "facts", neither did anyone who called the whole debacle a "Ponzi" scheme. Certainly, everyone who participated in the mess are cupable, but let's not get carried away with the accusations.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 (Mr. X): <<Perhaps you should apologize for that, since you are constantly accusing others of doing that to you.>> <You're correct, and I apologize.> Thank you. <It wasn't until post 34 that Dabob asserted there wasn't political pressure to lend to the poor.> Well, no. 34 was a continuation of 22, and your response to IT. To wit: <<And it had nothing to do with political pressure to lend to the poor.>> <Of course it didn't. Because you guys say so> <No, not because we say so, but because that's the fact.> Meaning that the mechanisms described in #22 (bundling the bad loans, etc., which are contributing factors to the current crisis) had nothing to do with political pressure to lend to the poor. And that IS a fact. Do you see now?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And that IS a fact. Do you see now?> If it was a fact, you could have proved it a long time ago, instead of demanding I produce evidence for something I didn't assert, and repeating erroneous opinions.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, obviously you still don't get it. The fact I asserted was that the practice of financial companies bundling iffy loans and selling them as securities AFTER THEY'D MADE THE ORIGINAL LOANS had nothing to do with political pressure to lend to the poor. If there was any pressure, it would have been to make the original loans. You did assert that that had happened without backing it up, but that's a separate question. Read it again, please: "After the sales, they were happy to bundle these bad loans as "instruments" and sell them - getting their fees for THAT transaction as well as for the original sale. And that's how these defaults are affecting not just the original home lenders, but the rest of the financial sector as well. And it had nothing to do with political pressure to lend to the poor."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I agree that the bundling caused it to affect the rest of the financial sector, but it was the loaning to the poor that caused the foreclosures which caused the bundles to lose value. And I still believe there was political pressure to lend to the poor.
Originally Posted By Mr X You can believe it if you wish. It certainly helps bolster your usual arguments. As for me, I don't buy it. The companies in question are far from stupid, and wouldn't have delved into that mess if they didn't think they'd profit from it (and they did, handsomely, for a while). And the funny part of it is, politics aside, they didn't really start getting into the realm of total insanity with "extreme loans" like no doc, no verification, 100% or more covered, irresponsible stuff like that, until late in the game (around 2006ish). Why? Because they ran out of "regular" borrowers to feed off of. The housing recession had already begun. That has nothing to do with politics or pressure. The companies simply wanted to keep getting wealthy, and had to find a new sucker. And they KNEW it would end badly. Look at all the CEO's around that time. They were selling their own companies shares at a record pace.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>it was the loaning to the poor that caused the foreclosures<< But the foreclosures are not limited to low income places. As people moved up to bigger and bigger homes or took out equity lines, they're the ones that have lost their homes at record paces or find themselves "upside down." It's the middle income homes that are dropping in value the fastest, and that's not because "poor people" moved in. Companies were eager to loan to anyone and everyone because really, they had little to lose for a time. Home prices were rising, so if someone couldn't pay, the mortage companies could sell the home at a profit. I think this focusing on "lending to the poor" is kind of off the mark.
Originally Posted By Mr X Exactly K2M. It wasn't the loaning to the poor that caused the forclosures, it was the push to get people into more house than they could afford. Regular people can be homeowners. Regular people CAN'T live in mansions. It doesn't work that way.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Those are good points, but I don't think they invalidate mine. And I think Mr X is being a little hard on mortgage companies. A lot of them probably thought they were doing good by getting people into nicer houses, in addition to making a nice living for themselves. I think most people are basically decent, and don't set out to intentionally hurt others, just to make a buck.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And I think Mr X is being a little hard on mortgage companies.*** OMG, I couldn't disagree more. Time after time I witnessed fabrications, outright lies about the state of the companies and the danger of the toxic loans (sometimes right before bankruptcy), all while the CEO's were shoveling money out of the companies as fast as they could. In the end those guys screwed over the homeowners, their employees, AND their stockholders. I don't see any "nice guys who made a mistake" side to it at all. This was pure and unadulterated greed, damn the consequenses. And the sad part is, it worked (for THEM). No prosecutions, no inquiries, and those guys all "retired" richer than midas! Heck, the guys from New Century had the audacity to demand millions be awarded through the bankrupcy court to the CEO and upper staff so they could "better cope with the proceedings". Gimme a freakin break. I tend to want to think as you do, Doug, that most people are just trying to get by. But in this case, I saw some pure and simple nastiness in the name of money. As I've told you, I've been monitoring this situation for a LONG TIME (and making a buck or two short selling the companies in the process lol).
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo re the mortgage companies - it takes two to tango, just the companies know better. Just a shame that there isn't a greater emphasis on personal finance classes in schools rather than the stuff they do teach. I know PE is an important part of life, but personal finance is even more so.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I know PE is an important part of life, but personal finance is even more so. >> Schools don't stress PE enough, either.
