Originally Posted By dshyates "Not so. The recent meltdown was the result of several factors, but the primary one was the push to lower the barrier to credit to allow more people to buy homes. This policy was pushed mostly by Democrats, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." And this is TOTAL NEOCON BullSh*T. Yes the Dems pushed for sub-prime loans. And that fact is what you hang your freakin hat on that fact. Ignoring that what really caused the meltdown wasn't subprime loans. It was dropping the barrier between commercial and investment banking allowing lenders to write toxic loans and sell them in a pretty bundle. And then reducing the leveraging to 4 cents on a dollar. The banks would have no problem wiith the subprime stuff if they weren't leveraged at four cents on a dollar and have SOOOOO much toxic paper. So this Dems and their subprime loans caused the whole mess is ABSOLUTE horse sh*t.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***This policy was pushed mostly by Democrats, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.*** A gross oversimplification if I ever read one.
Originally Posted By Mr X dsh, I would give Doug this much...the Dems pushing for easy loans WAS a contributing factor in this mess. But certainly not the only one, nor even close to the biggest one as you illustrated (so colorfully lol) above.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And this is TOTAL NEOCON BullSh*T.> No, it's not. <It was dropping the barrier between commercial and investment banking allowing lenders to write toxic loans and sell them in a pretty bundle.> Lenders could have written toxic loans without dropping the barrier between commerical and investment banking. But it was Fannie Mae, under the control of Democrats, that pushed mortgage backed securities. Those securities wouldn't have lost their value if the mortgages backed by them hadn't gone bad because standards had been lowered mostly at the insistence of Democrats. I'm sure if I looked a bit, I could find the quote from Howard Raines saying that Fannie Mae should be able to take on more debt because mortgage backed securities were such a secure investment. Several Republicans, including Sen McCain, tried to rein in the GSE's, but were rebuffed by Democrats.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I remember Mr X making a big deal about what a crook Anthony Mozilo was, and how badly run Countrywide was. But as soon as the news broke that Mozilo was a Democrat who gave favorable loans to a bunch of Democrats, and who was encouraged to continue making toxic loans because Fannie Mae kept buying them, we stopped hearing that. Why is that?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So this Dems and their subprime loans caused the whole mess> I specifically said otherwise. If you're going to debate scarecrows, please don't quote me.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains <<And, despite rumours, she never tried to ban books, or charged women for rape kits, or pushed creationism, or tried to outlaw abortion, and she was never a member of an Alaska separtist party.>> Wow - I never knew these were even out there... <<She upholds family values, without pusing her pro-life views>>> I do have issue with this - Isn't her teenage daughter expecting a child. I would say this whether this was a man or woman.. With 5 kids - including a special needs child and a pregnant teen - I also read something about her son in the service because it was that or jail for some trouble he got in (not sure if that was true)... That She has too much on her plate and should be concentrating more on what's going on there before looking at running for such a high office. And yes like I said before - If she was a man I would say the same.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Lenders could have written toxic loans without dropping the barrier between commerical and investment banking. " Now why in God's name would they do that if they couldn't sell them to someone else. The reason they COULD write toxic loans was becuase they were going to sell it. Only an idiot would write a toxic loan if they had to keep it. Duh!!!! "Those securities wouldn't have lost their value if the mortgages backed by them hadn't gone bad because standards had been lowered mostly at the insistence of Democrats." NOOOO!!!!! The standards were lowered because they could sell them. You are using the Dems as a scapegoat. If the banks had to keep the loans they wrote, they wouldn't have written toxic loans. The subprime thing certainly compounded the problem, but it didn't cause it. What caused it was allowing banks to have NO responsibility for the loans they wrote. But like an alcoholic until you acknowledge the problem.....
Originally Posted By Mr X Funny Douglas, until this very moment I did not know he was a Democrat. And yes I still think he is a slimy crook. I guess not everyone plays your kinds of debating games, eh Douglas. Please keep bringing that sort of stuff up though, I'd love to hear more about your misconceptions about me.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Now why in God's name would they do that if they couldn't sell them to someone else.> One, the government told them to. Google "redlining" and "janet reno", or the "community reinvestment act" and "acorn". Two, they could sell them to the GSE's without the barriers being dropped. Three, the legislation to remove the barriers was passed by a bipartisan majority and signed by President Clinton. The Democrats supported it as much as the Republicans. <You are using the Dems as a scapegoat.> They're certainly more guilty than Reaganomics, which is what you claimed.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I guess not everyone plays your kinds of debating games, eh Douglas.> And that's too bad. If people played the debating game my way, there'd be a lot more honest discussion and a greater variety of viewpoints, rather than the constant vitriol of some posters, and continued distortion, dismissal, and denigration of conservative ideas and posters.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains You know I really don't understand why anyone is all for one party or the other anymore. It seems that the lines are so mixed anymore - I truely don't look at whether the person has a donkey or elephant standing next to them. I only want to know who they are and how they are going to fix the mess we are in. My only stipulation was they could not have the name Bush. While I didn't vote for him the first time, I did the second - He didn't do what I thought he would and our country is suffering.
Originally Posted By dshyates "They're certainly more guilty than Reaganomics, which is what you claimed." Two of the 4 major components of Reaganomics were deregulation and the Trickle Down Theory. The economic meltdown was a direct result of deregulation. The Trickle Down Theory is a completely diffent myth.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<I guess not everyone plays your kinds of debating games, eh Douglas.> And that's too bad.*** No, it's really not. The fact that you assume I somehow suddenly "hushed up" an issue because news came out that made Democrats look bad is just hilarious. I'm nowheres near the paranoid politico you make me out to be, frankly I just don't really care that much one way or the other. Sure I like Obama and can't stand the policies of Bush, but that just makes me, well, a typical American at this point. This laughable stuff is straight out of YOUR playbook Doug, not mine.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The economic meltdown was a direct result of deregulation. The Trickle Down Theory is a completely diffent myth.> Nope and nope.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<knowledgeability>> Yeah, that's good, Fox. Add some syllables to an already perfectly good word. That'll make you seem REALLY substantive.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, it's really not.> Yes, it is. <The fact that you assume I somehow suddenly "hushed up" an issue because news came out that made Democrats look bad is just hilarious.> It seems more probable than some of the assertions you have made about me, most of which had no basis in fact.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris "There is a (very serious and sober sounding) thread over in a Conservative forum I sometimes check out...where they are discussing the "fact" that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, AND what they should do about it. I kid you not. 32 NEW! Mr X Thu 11/6/2008 5:26a Amazingly (er, even MORE amazingly?), not ONE poster has chimed in with even so much as a "come on, guys, let's not be ridiculous here". Not a one. Even single post is a somber "I agree, and this is horrible, and I've bought as many guns as I could get my hands on to prepare for these end days". Every one of them. And this is not a religious forum or ANYTHING, just a "regular" conservatives.com kinda place." The funny thing is, now the Evil Empire is out of the White House, I actually consider the Apocalypse to be a little further away. It was the extreme religious right who were CONVINCED they were taking part in Bible "End Time's prophecies" who have led the US into a snug pact with "The Chosen People" Israel and wish to align themselves with what they see as God's Plan, faithfully knowing the Rapture and Heaven await them. I think the transfer to a sane Democratic govt on Tuesday more than anything gave me hope for the future that the loonies(as policy makers)are, for now out of power.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris "While I didn't vote for(Bush)the first time, I did the second" Kinda fitting, considering your name. ; )
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains <<Kinda fitting, considering your name.>> Hey I represent that...LOL!
