2012 debates

[bleeding heart]

Maybe we are all just naive and stupid for even trying...

No one will convince Shady, or kraychik, or a few others.

On the other hand, some of us appreciate and listen to the more sane voices...so keep it up!

[Shady]

No one will convince Shady, or kraychik, or a few others.

On the other hand, some of us appreciate and listen to the more sane voices...so keep it up!

Yes, the "sane" voices, that wanna give the government a pass, when they enabled the housing crisis with their policies that were suppose to encourage homeownership for lower income individuals. And then, when people saw the crisis looming, and tried to correct it, called them racists and against the poor, and that they were exaggerating the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-YtqVIKTTE

"But those who argue that housing prices are now at the point of a bubble, seem to me to be missing a very important point. Unlike previous examples we have had, where substantial excessive inflation of prices later caused some problems, we are talking about an entity, homeownership, where there is not the degree of leverage we have seen elsewhere. This is not the dot com situation. You're not gonna see a collapse that people talk about when they see a bubble." Democrats, 2005, when warned about the looming housing crisis.

Anyways, my prediction for the debate tonight, is that Joe Biden is gonna yell a lot, scream a lot, and pound on the table a lot, in order to try to re-energize the Democrats after Obama asskicking at the hands of Willard Mitt Romney last wednesday.

[kimmy]

But the government enabled the whole thing. Including prosecuting banks that practiced discriminatory lending, ie, not giving mortgages to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify. You can keep spinning like a top though.

That's your explanation? The banks decided to give out far more sub-prime mortgages than any regulation required them to, and your explanation is that they did it because the government "enabled" it?

The government "enabled" it?

Since when do you Hero Of The Free Markets talk about private enterprises as if they were helpless alcoholics?

"I didn't want to start drinking again, but the beer was there and I couldn't stop myself..."

-k

[Shady]

That's your explanation? The banks decided to give out far more sub-prime mortgages than any regulation required them to, and your explanation is that they did it because the government "enabled" it?

Nope. Stop being obtuse. The GOVERNMENT lowered mortgage standards as to promote homeownership among lower income individuals, that wouldn't otherwise qualify. At the same time, the GOVERNMENT prosecuted several banks for "discriminatory" lending practices. IE, the didn't lend to minority and lower income people. Do the math kimmy. Even you can add that disasterous policy up.

Nothing about helpless alcoholics. But when the government subsidizes bad and destructive policy, you get more of it. Stripping down mortgage standards, prosecuting banks, and facilitating no income, no job loans through government entitites like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae all primarily contributed to the housing crisis. Or do you think banks wanna give out loans to people that they know won't be able to pay them back? Come'on kimmy, start using your brain for once.

[kimmy]

Nope. Stop being obtuse. The GOVERNMENT lowered mortgage standards as to promote homeownership among lower income individuals, that wouldn't otherwise qualify. At the same time, the GOVERNMENT prosecuted several banks for "discriminatory" lending practices. IE, the didn't lend to minority and lower income people. Do the math kimmy. Even you can add that disasterous policy up.

Nothing about helpless alcoholics. But when the government subsidizes bad and destructive policy, you get more of it. Stripping down mortgage standards, prosecuting banks, and facilitating no income, no job loans through government entitites like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae all primarily contributed to the housing crisis. Or do you think banks wanna give out loans to people that they know won't be able to pay them back?

You've been shown again and again and again that the large majority of sub-prime loans had *nothing* to do with CRA. The majority of the institutions dishing out sub-prime mortgages weren't even under requirements of the CRA.

Yes, Shady, they did. The banks absolutely did want to give out these mortgages.

The fact that you don't understand that, and that you don't understand the reasons why sub-prime mortages were highly desirable for these institutions, makes you ill-equipped to label anybody else an "economic illiterate."

-k

[Shady]

You've been shown again and again and again that the large majority of sub-prime loans had *nothing* to do with CRA. The majority of the institutions dishing out sub-prime mortgages weren't even under requirements of the CRA.

Yes, Shady, they did. The banks absolutely did want to give out these mortgages.

The fact that you don't understand that, and that you don't understand the reasons why sub-prime mortages were highly desirable for these institutions, makes you ill-equipped to label anybody else an "economic illiterate."

-k

I'm not talking about the CRA. It has little to do with the CRA. God, you people are absolutely hopeless. The government lowers mortgage standards in the late 90s, under the direction of democrat policy, to facilitate more mortgages to lower incomes, that wouldn't otherwise qualify, and you're bringing up the CRA? The CRA from the 70s? /facepalm.

[Shady]

Ron Paul predicted the housing crisis back in 2003.

[Shady]

Distorted markets, thanks to government policy and intervention.

[sharkman]

Just finished up the debate, it was a bit of a mess really. Another moderator that wasn't really up to the challenge, I'd say. She came up with some weird questions as well. Too much talking over each other and I think Biden did the worst of this with his sarcastic or condescending tone and overuse of his favorite move which was to repeat his statements slower and then smirking and being rude. A lawyer in the worst sense of the word. Ryan kept saying "Look.." too often but other than that was more respectful and evenhanded sounding.

I was disappointed to hear that Obama had gone to the moderator's wedding. Good grief, can we not have the appearance of objectivity in a moderator?

[BubberMiley]

How was the moderator biased in the actual debate?

Or is this just another whiny victimhood everybody-hates-us rant about the MSM that has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever?

[jefferiah]

Just finished up the debate, it was a bit of a mess really. Another moderator that wasn't really up to the challenge, I'd say. She came up with some weird questions as well. Too much talking over each other and I think Biden did the worst of this with his sarcastic or condescending tone and overuse of his favorite move which was to repeat his statements slower and then smirking and being rude. A lawyer in the worst sense of the word. Ryan kept saying "Look.." too often but other than that was more respectful and evenhanded sounding.

I was disappointed to hear that Obama had gone to the moderator's wedding. Good grief, can we not have the appearance of objectivity in a moderator?

I thought the moderator was really fair and did an excellent job. And especially patient, since Biden was seemed to be taking out a lot of his anger on her rather than Ryan, at least when he wasn't laughing at serious issues.

Edited October 12, 2012 by jefferiah

[TheNewTeddy]

Jonathan Kay ‏@jonkay

Another good semi-final debate tonight. So I guess Biden now faces Romney in the finals

[sharkman]

How was the moderator biased in the actual debate?

Or is this just another whiny victimhood everybody-hates-us rant about the MSM that has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever?

I didn't say or infer that the moderator was biased. Could you respond to any of the points I did make?

Edited October 12, 2012 by sharkman

[dre]

I'm not talking about the CRA. It has little to do with the CRA. God, you people are absolutely hopeless. The government lowers mortgage standards in the late 90s, under the direction of democrat policy, to facilitate more mortgages to lower incomes, that wouldn't otherwise qualify, and you're bringing up the CRA? The CRA from the 70s? /facepalm.

The government does not set mortgage standards. A bank can give a 300 dollar loan to rufus the stunt-bum if they want to, or they can refuse to lend 10 bux to a billionaire. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense. Its been domonstrated for you about 20 times that the government did not force lenders to make subprime loans. The companies that were making most of them were not even banks.

Why dont you back up your hollow ass claim? Show us the law that mandated sub-prime loans. Lets see it.

[dre]

Distorted markets, thanks to government policy and intervention.

Thats partially true, the problem is you have absolutely no idea what youre talking about or how the markets were distorted.

[Michael Hardner]

But the government enabled the whole thing. Including prosecuting banks that practiced discriminatory lending, ie, not giving mortgages to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify. You can keep spinning like a top though.

Didn't someone post that the discrimination was against geographic profiling ? Did the government ever force them to make risky loans or not ? I"m confused here.

[Pliny]

You've been shown again and again and again that the large majority of sub-prime loans had *nothing* to do with CRA. The majority of the institutions dishing out sub-prime mortgages weren't even under requirements of the CRA.

Yes, Shady, they did. The banks absolutely did want to give out these mortgages.

The fact that you don't understand that, and that you don't understand the reasons why sub-prime mortages were highly desirable for these institutions, makes you ill-equipped to label anybody else an "economic illiterate."

-k

kimmy really.

The objective of the government is to keep the economy growing. They do it by pumping money, in the form of cash and credit, into the economy and lowering interest rates which they undoubtedly did. They encouraged bankers, through Fannie and Freddie who bought a lot of the subprime mortgages, to make riskier loans than they normally would have. If the government backed agencies Fannie and Freddie had refused to buy these mortgages that could have put a check on the lending. The economy was booming, was it not? The warnings were there but low interest rates and continued money creation prevailed. Basically, there had to be a crash when supply exceeded demand for housing.

Many people who wouldn't have qualified to enter the housing market did enter it. Everyone was excited about making money on rising house prices.

Why were the prices rising so fast? Banks made the money available, Fannie and Freddie, both government agencies, signaled the ok to continue along with the policies of the CRA and Barney Franks and Chris Dodd claiming all was well.

Shady is not wrong on this.

Where did the warnings come from? Not most economists. A few, like Austrian economist, Peter Schiff, were making noises about it. Ron Paul and even George Bush in 2006 expressed concern. The fact that government did not heed the warnings and encouraged the banks to continue by pooh-poohing the "alarmists" was a market signal to continue.

If economists themselves, for the most part, couldn't and didn't predict the crash or correction how well do you think they will be at analyzing the causes? Are the going to blame themselves? Is Government going to blame itself? No. Only those who saw it coming would be able to make correct analyses of what occurred. The rest are going to be covering their asses and painting a scenario of innocence.

You have bought the government line that blames Wall Street entirely. They screwed up and now we have to bail them out to save the economy.

The truth is that Wall street was doing what it always does. Attempting to read the markets and maximize profit not run itself into the ground. They were aware of the riskiness of what they were doing and tried to hedge any losses if the market turned. The signal from government was an all systems go.

[Pliny]

Thats partially true, the problem is you have absolutely no idea what youre talking about or how the markets were distorted.

Market distortion can only occur by wrong signals in the market. Government distorted the market with low interest rates and loose fiscal policies.

You can quote all the government sources and economists you want but if they were not sending warnings to banks at the height of the boom, like Barney Franks, then they were just making up stories to cover their asses. The people who correctly predicted and warned of the crash have the real reasons.

[Pliny]

On the thread topic....didn't Joe Biden say that the Ayatollah in Iran was seeing his economy stagnating, his money devaluing, his exports at 50% less than they were....I think a lot of Americans see that in their country, too.

Joe was very unseemly in the debate. Ryan was ok but was unable to make a distinction between himself and Biden because I think he believes too much in government solutions.

[BubberMiley]

Good grief, can we not have the appearance of objectivity in a moderator?

I didn't say or infer that the moderator was biased.

[bleeding heart]

Yes, the "sane" voices, that wanna give the government a pass, when they enabled the housing crisis with their policies that were suppose to encourage homeownership for lower income individuals. And then, when people saw the crisis looming, and tried to correct it, called them racists and against the poor, and that they were exaggerating the problem.

Who? when?

I've heard this charge before, and have noted a peculiar reticence to provide any evidence for it.

[bleeding heart]

I didn't say or infer that the moderator was biased.

???

Whether or not you inferred it, only you can say.

But you obviously implied it.

[bleeding heart]

You have bought the government line that blames Wall Street entirely.

T

It has nothing to do with "the government line."

Kimmy, and other critics, have been doing nothing more radical than holding people responsible for their own behaviour.

You cannot 100% blame the government, of either party.

Because that is trying to pass off responsibility.

The truth is that Wall street was doing what it always does. Attempting to read the markets and maximize profit not run itself into the ground. They were aware of the riskiness of what they were doing and tried to hedge any losses if the market turned. The signal from government was an all systems go.

Even as far as this is true, the private entities remain responsible for their own behaviour.

Period.

[blueblood]

T

It has nothing to do with "the government line."

Kimmy, and other critics, have been doing nothing more radical than holding people responsible for their own behaviour.

You cannot 100% blame the government, of either party.

Because that is trying to pass off responsibility.

Even as far as this is true, the private entities remain responsible for their own behaviour.

Period.

So you would lump in the irresponsible buffoons with a sense of entitlement strolling into the bank and asking for a loan they couldn't afford in with those same private entities?

They are just as guilty as everyone else.

[bleeding heart]

So you would lump in the irresponsible buffoons with a sense of entitlement strolling into the bank and asking for a loan they couldn't afford in with those same private entities?

They are just as guilty as everyone else.

Oh, sure; wealthy and powerful predators are exactly the same as silly people, mathematically challenged, who are informed by the predators themselves that they can truly afford their "dream home."

There's obviously guilt to go around (everyone has conceded this, except for "the gubmint did it!" apologists for bad, profitable behaviour) but there's no equivalency of guilt..