Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Not only my opinion, but that of everyone who's weighed in on it, except you. You don't have to back up your assertions, of course, but when you don't, your credibility takes another hit. I know, I know, you don't care about my opinion about your credibility. And on and on we go.> So stop already. Stop distorting what I've said and attacking me in general. If I've said something that isn't true, then show that it isn't true, instead of continuing insisting that I need to show it is, or just let it go.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So stop already. Stop distorting what I've said and attacking me in general. If I've said something that isn't true, then show that it isn't true, instead of continuing insisting that I need to show it is, or just let it go.> I'm sorry, but you don't get to falsely claim to be the victim, say I've done things I haven't done, and then say "let it go." If you're going to do that, you're going to get called on it every time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm sorry, but you don't get to falsely claim to be the victim, say I've done things I haven't done, and then say "let it go."> Not that I'm making false claims, but I didn't make any claim to victimhood in post 274, or say anything about anything you'd done, yet you still responded to it with an attack on me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <or say anything about anything you'd done,> Huh? You said I should "Stop distorting what I've said." That is something I've (supposedly) done. And you'll get called on that. (And then you'll try to say you didn't do it). Fortunately, it's all there in black and white.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Huh? You said I should "Stop distorting what I've said." That is something I've (supposedly) done. And you'll get called on that. (And then you'll try to say you didn't do it). Fortunately, it's all there in black and white.> Yes. And notice that I just referred to post 274, and the quote you just gave was not from that post. Again, I didn't make any claim to victimhood in post 274, or say anything about anything you'd done, and you responded with an attack on me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Yes. And notice that I just referred to post 274, and the quote you just gave was not from that post. Again, I didn't make any claim to victimhood in post 274> Well, that's convenient. Since my pointing out of your victimhood complex was in reference to 280. You should know that, since I quoted it exactly. So then you say you didn't claim victimhood in #274? That's a cheap attempt at moving the goalposts AND a non-sequitur. And I didn't attack you after 274. I criticized your posting style, not you, and pointed out that others are calling you to task for it as well.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<Okay, then what did you mean by political pressure being brought to bear on the companies being part of the problem, then?> Exactly that. Part of the problem. Not all of the problem, and not that politicians ultimately doomed anybody.*** Okay then, back to my original question. If, as you believe, this was part of the problem, why haven't we heard any CEO's of these companies complaining about it?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Probably because there are too many liberal pundits complaining that the CEO's are at fault.
Originally Posted By Mr X You obviously misunderstood my comment. I said why aren't the *ceo's* complaining, such as when they are brought before congress. That has nothing to do with any pundits, liberal or otherwise, and their comments. So, why aren't the CEO's placing the blame accordingly, according to your theory? It makes no sense that they wouldn't, actually. As you said, there are a lot of pundits (rightly) blaming them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So, why aren't the CEO's placing the blame accordingly, according to your theory?> Maybe they are, and we're just not hearing it. But then again, what would be the point? Do you think members of Congress are going to say, "Yeah, you're right, we're as much at fault as you are." It's not like Congress forced them to lower the barriers to lending. Remember, my original statement was, "For many years, liberals have complained that banks didn't lend money to the poor. The banks responded to political pressure by lowering the barriers to credit, and now they're being blamed for handing out too much money." I still believe that's a true statement.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***It's not like Congress forced them to lower the barriers to lending.*** Well, that's the real point though isn't it? You theorize that the banks lowered the barriers to credit due to political pressure. I don't buy that theory, for the simple fact that CEO's are not that stupid and would COMPLAIN about it if it were to materially effect their company, and in any case this whole situation (particularly the CEO's bailing themselves out of the game as quick as they could) rings of greed in my opinion. What else would motivate a company to hand out money that could NEVER be paid back? Short term greed.
Originally Posted By Mr X Appreciate the well-thought out response by the way. It's an interesting theory.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I don't buy that theory, for the simple fact that CEO's are not that stupid and would COMPLAIN about it if it were to materially effect their company >> Not to mention that the banking lobby is as strong as the lobbies for pharmaceuticals. There's about zero chance that Congress is going to pressure banks to do anything that the banks don't want to do. If anything, lobbyists encouraged Washington to look the other way while the banks were fleecing Americans with their "innovative" mortgage products.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The banking lobby is as strong as the lobbies for pharmaceuticals. There's about zero chance that Congress is going to pressure banks to do anything that the banks don't want to do. > Bingo, SG. This whole "political pressure to lend to the poor" just doesn't ring true on so many levels (including that one), plus I don't believe we saw any increased lending outside of the home mortgage arena. PLUS, at the time the mortgage mess was set in motion, Democrats were the minority in congress and thus didn't chair any committees or set Congress' agendas. The idea that liberals as the minority pressured the banks into doing something they didn't want to do is, essentially, a fantasy. <If anything, lobbyists encouraged Washington to look the other way while the banks were fleecing Americans with their "innovative" mortgage products.. Bingo again.
