Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Different strokes Sport goofy. funny I played hooky most Pe or found a way to get out of it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think most people are basically decent<< People, yes. Companies, not always. There were some VERY predatory lenders out there, charging outrageous interest rates, basically hosing anyone and everyone they could get their hooks into. They had little to lose when home prices kept going up up up. Several huge class action lawsuits have come up against these companies now. Some of them were having people fudge their income numbers to rush through shaky loans. They didn't do this to be nice. They did it to make a profit, knowing that it would turn out bad for the borrower in the long run. This was capitalism at its ugliest -- making money while causing a lot of pain for families attempting to get the American dream. Yes, there is blame on both sides, but I fault the lenders more, because as Mr. X said, they were the Pied Piper here. >>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.<< Yes, and now many of them will enjoy the safety net of government bailouts and other deals. As I said in the beginning of the thread, these guys love "pure Capitalism" when they're winning, but they go wee-wee-wee all the way home to a goverment bailout when their schemes fall apart.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I agree that the bundling caused it to affect the rest of the financial sector,> And that had nothing to do with political pressure to lend to the poor, as this happened after the loans were made. This is the only thing I claimed as fact. <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.> Well, you've never shown a shred of evidence for that - and I guess you'll still say that saying you "believe" that doesn't represent "asserting" that. Whatever. But Mr. X and Kar2oonman made great points about your first sentence in there - a large percentage of these foreclosures were not made to poor people, but rather middle class people who could have afforded a 200,000 home, but were talked into buying a 400,000 home, with promises of "don't worry; the value will always go up and you'll MAKE money on it..." And yes, although some of the loans were undoubtedly given in good faith, many really were the result of predatory practices. And, to get back to the original topic, 2oony put it very well: "these guys love "pure Capitalism" when they're winning, but they go wee-wee-wee all the way home to a goverment bailout when their schemes fall apart."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Well, you've never shown a shred of evidence for that - and I guess you'll still say that saying you "believe" that doesn't represent "asserting" that.> I've shown as much evidence as you have.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I did not make the original assertion. My only assertion was that the bundling of loans had nothing to do with political pressure to lend to the poor; and I think even you now understand that that was what I said, and agree with it. So my need for evidence has been satisfied. Your assertion remains unproven, to say the least.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I did not make the original assertion.> Neither did I. <I think even you now understand that that was what I said, and agree with it.> I understand that was what you meant. But that was not your only assertion.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I did not make the original assertion.>> <Neither did I.> Well, yes you did. It was way back in #7. " The banks responded to political pressure by lowering the barriers to credit," you said. Asked to show it, you couldn't. You talked about a bill that passed in 2006 and said nothing passes without political pressure, but that would be a non-sequitur with your original assertion, since the banks had lowered their barriers well before that bill passed. <<I think even you now understand that that was what I said, and agree with it.>> <I understand that was what you meant. But that was not your only assertion.> I backed up anything I asserted. But once again you'd rather distract and derail by getting into minutia from 200 posts ago than address the issues that, say, Kar2oonman and Mr. X raised more recently.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It was way back in #7.> So obviously, it wasn't the original assertion. <The banks responded to political pressure by lowering the barriers to credit," you said. Asked to show it, you couldn't.> That wasn't what I was asked. <I backed up anything I asserted.> No, you didn't. <But once again you'd rather distract and derail by getting into minutia from 200 posts ago than address the issues that, say, Kar2oonman and Mr. X raised more recently.> You're the one doing most of the distracting and derailing.
Originally Posted By Mr X Point, Douglas. Excellent use of obfuscation, denial, and in particular a VERY well played refusal to speak to the actual question while at the same time accusing the other debate team leader of not speaking to the actual question. Well played, debate team Douglas! You are GOOD at this.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<It was way back in #7.>> <So obviously, it wasn't the original assertion.> Between you and me it was. My only previous post was #4, which was just a cut and paste of a WashPost column. And on this particular sub-topic (lending to the poor), yes it was the first assertion. But nice try. <<The banks responded to political pressure by lowering the barriers to credit," you said. Asked to show it, you couldn't.>> <That wasn't what I was asked.> I believe it was. But let's not get derailed into semantics again. If I didn't ask you before, I'll ask you now, flat out, so there's no misunderstanding. Can you back up your assertion that "The banks responded to political pressure by lowering the barriers to credit?" Hm? <<I backed up anything I asserted.>> <No, you didn't.> Mr. Python strikes again. <<But once again you'd rather distract and derail by getting into minutia from 200 posts ago than address the issues that, say, Kar2oonman and Mr. X raised more recently.>> <You're the one doing most of the distracting and derailing.> Followed by Mr. "I know you are, but what am I?" Your two favorite alter egos. But it's put up or shut up time now. Can you back up your assertion that "The banks responded to political pressure by lowering the barriers to credit," or can you not?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Can you back up your assertion that "The banks responded to political pressure by lowering the barriers to credit," or can you not?> Not to your satisfaction, so it's not worth my trouble trying.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Corporate welfare: Good and necessary part of capitalism, or a hypocritical bailout shielding banks from lousy choices? Discuss.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Can you back up your assertion that "The banks responded to political pressure by lowering the barriers to credit," or can you not?>> <Not to your satisfaction, so it's not worth my trouble trying.> Then do it for anyone else reading this thread who may be wondering how in the world you came up with that one. Unless (my guess) you just decided to assert that without any backup whatsoever. If you know of some, a simple link or two would do.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Corporate welfare: Good and necessary part of capitalism, or a hypocritical bailout shielding banks from lousy choices?> In the Bear Stearns case, it's a tricky one. I think there's a real case to be made that if they hadn't intervened, the overall effect would have been worse, and not just for Bear Stearns. In other words, they were faced with a menu of bad choices, and picked the one that might have been least bad. In this case, I can't fault them. In other cases, I think Washington can be quick to offer corporate welfare just because they were lobbied to provide it, not because it is necessary for the economy in general.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Not to your satisfaction, so it's not worth my trouble trying. >>> I'm going to write that one down. Whenever you ask someone for proof of something, I think we'll just re-assert that it's true, and provide the above response to any requests for evidence.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And what exactly is your post doing?*** Well, Douglas, my post is pointing out what you are doing, as though it isn't obvious enough. If I wanted to view a bunch of debating techniques, I'd go to www.debateclub.com, and if I wanted to hear the latest soundbyte by Rush Limbaugh I'd go to his site and so on. As this is laughingplace.com DISCUSSION forums, particularly about world events, I sort of expect to have actual discussions about things when I come here. Is that a lot to ask?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<<< Not to your satisfaction, so it's not worth my trouble trying. >>> I'm going to write that one down. Whenever you ask someone for proof of something, I think we'll just re-assert that it's true, and provide the above response to any requests for evidence.*** SuperDry, PAY NO ATTENTION to that man behind the curtain!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I sort of expect to have actual discussions about things when I come here.> So have them. I'm not stopping you. I said what I believed, and I explained why I believed it. If people don't think it's right, or don't want to try to understand it, then that's their right.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I said what I believed, and I explained why I believed it.*** No, you used well known debate techniques and rhetoric to avoid the actual discussion while at the same time making yourself out to be the intellectual superior. If you actually want to say what you believe, and explain why, and where appropriate point to sources to back up your arguments, I'd be more than happy to have a discussion with you. As it is though, you're not doing any of that. And at this point I think just about everyone has figured that out.
