2012 debates

[dre]

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.

I dont just quote government sources. The report I cited earlier was actually published by a major private bank. The other was by a private firm that advises private lenders. Iv also read extensively on the "austrian" perspective, and posted more on the problems inherent in the bubble generating boom and bust cycle than both you and shady put together.

Im ALSO even harder on the government than either of you are, and Iv posted many many times on the problems that can be caused when central banks make credit too easy.

And Iv even taken it further than that. Shady suggests the "problem" is someone one party did during one specific time... not suprising its his favorite ideological boogeyman... the democrats.

But government involvement actually runs much deeper than that.... If you want to find something to blame government for its not hard to do... heres the top 3 ways in which they contributed.

1. Bad trade policy over 30 years - The US ran a massive trade deficit with a number of countries over the last 30 years. This resulted in a massive glut of US dollars out there looking for somewhere to go. Countries running large trade surpluses with the US were flush with cash, and they invested all t hat money into the US housing market using asset backed securities as the vehicle.

2. They botched the rates - They eased credit trying to tackle the .COM recession, and kept them way to low for too long, even ignoring their own logn established protocols which would have seen rates on their way back up again as early as 2004.

3. They failed in their role as regulators. - They allowed a system where the firms that rate securities are paid by the exact same people that create the securities. Those private ratings agencies dutifully stamped AAA on securities that were nearly worthless, and people, investors, hedge fund managers, and pension fund managers around the world lined up to buy them because these were supposed to be the safest securities money could buy. We now know they were absolutely useless. And while the FDIC did a decent job regulating commercial banks (who incidently made a lot less of these loans) the government ignored other large segments of the market, and left them almost unregulated, such as investment banks, pure mortgage companies, thrifts, trusts, etc.

That doesnt sound like giving government a pass to me.

[dre]

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.

Of course not. Its the lenders responsibility to make sure they enforce solid income/debt ratios, not some random dude that walks through the door.

[kimmy]

After the 1st presidential debate, it was easy to tell who won. Republican supporters were pumping their fists, Democrat supporters were complaining about the moderator and complaining that Romney lied.

After the vice presidential debate, it's just as easy. Democrats are stoked, and Republican supporters are complaining about the moderator and complaining that Biden was rude and disrespectful to Ryan.

Luckily for Republicans, a vice presidential debate probably means next to nothing to voters who are still trying to decide who to support. Democrats are mostly just excited because Biden did all the things Obama ought to have done during the first debate-- he was forceful, authoritative, and most importantly challenged directly Ryan on falsehoods.

Unfortunately for Obama, he can't really do it the same way... it's just not in his character. It's just impossible to picture Obama shouting "mullarkey!" or laughing at his opponent while he's talking, or interrupting his opponent to call out a lie. It's just a personality thing.

-k

[Pliny]

I dont just quote government sources. The report I cited earlier was actually published by a major private bank. The other was by a private firm that advises private lenders. Iv also read extensively on the "austrian" perspective, and posted more on the problems inherent in the bubble generating boom and bust cycle than both you and shady put together.

Im ALSO even harder on the government than either of you are, and Iv posted many many times on the problems that can be caused when central banks make credit too easy.

And Iv even taken it further than that. Shady suggests the "problem" is someone one party did during one specific time... not suprising its his favorite ideological boogeyman... the democrats.

But government involvement actually runs much deeper than that.... If you want to find something to blame government for its not hard to do... heres the top 3 ways in which they contributed.

1. Bad trade policy over 30 years - The US ran a massive trade deficit with a number of countries over the last 30 years. This resulted in a massive glut of US dollars out there looking for somewhere to go. Countries running large trade surpluses with the US were flush with cash, and they invested all t hat money into the US housing market using asset backed securities as the vehicle.

2. They botched the rates - They eased credit trying to tackle the .COM recession, and kept them way to low for too long, even ignoring their own logn established protocols which would have seen rates on their way back up again as early as 2004.

3. They failed in their role as regulators. - They allowed a system where the firms that rate securities are paid by the exact same people that create the securities. Those private ratings agencies dutifully stamped AAA on securities that were nearly worthless, and people, investors, hedge fund managers, and pension fund managers around the world lined up to buy them because these were supposed to be the safest securities money could buy. We now know they were absolutely useless. And while the FDIC did a decent job regulating commercial banks (who incidently made a lot less of these loans) the government ignored other large segments of the market, and left them almost unregulated, such as investment banks, pure mortgage companies, thrifts, trusts, etc.

That doesnt sound like giving government a pass to me.

Well you've come a long way from your original position a year ago of the big bad banks on Wall Street did it all. You've obviously done some reading.

I doubt you've read more on ABC (Austrian Business Cycle) theory than myself. The theory of marginal utility goes far in explaining the behavior of people in the market.

I don't think you have ever mentioned the creation of "moral hazard" which gives socialists the ammo to attack capitalism as immoral.

Someone has to say no on these immoral rocket rides and no one did in the case of the housing crisis. Unfortunately, big daddy from the nanny state said just keep on doing what you are doing. No one wanted to see the other guy making all the money and they all piled in with the sanction of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, et al.

What it boils down to is when regulation from the government is supposed to guide the market, the market looks to government for guidance. It got guidance real hard. The regulation is copious, complex and arbitrary. When fiscal policy is loose and the Fed wants to heat up the economy it looks like a good guy and Wall Street becomes awash in cash, lending becomes easy. Banks are the first place where new money shows up.and it works its way into the economy from there. The idea is to get people spending and consuming which will drive production. The problem is it is a false economy built on a flush of new money and that money in the crash will disappear. The worst thing to do is inject new money with bailouts and government borrowing. It might help for awhile keeping things from completely tanking but it will be devastating in the long term. Economists have obviously got a plan but it's not working and they will blame the global economy when it all comes tumbling down. It will be the market or the policies of the Republicans, if Romney is elected. Hoarders will be vilified and it will probably be illegal again to own gold and silver if that is where people are putting their paper money tokens.

The US deficit has been over a trillion dollars for the last four years but no one is asking where that money is going??? Where is a trillion dollars a year being spent? There hasn't been a budget passed in congress for three years thanks to Harry Reid.

Enough said.

[GostHacked]

The US deficit has been over a trillion dollars for the last four years but no one is asking where that money is going??? Where is a trillion dollars a year being spent? There hasn't been a budget passed in congress for three years thanks to Harry Reid.

Enough said.

The better question is where did that money come from in order to go somewhere.

[Pliny]

After the 1st presidential debate, it was easy to tell who won. Republican supporters were pumping their fists, Democrat supporters were complaining about the moderator and complaining that Romney lied.

After the vice presidential debate, it's just as easy. Democrats are stoked, and Republican supporters are complaining about the moderator and complaining that Biden was rude and disrespectful to Ryan.

Luckily for Republicans, a vice presidential debate probably means next to nothing to voters who are still trying to decide who to support. Democrats are mostly just excited because Biden did all the things Obama ought to have done during the first debate-- he was forceful, authoritative, and most importantly challenged directly Ryan on falsehoods.

Unfortunately for Obama, he can't really do it the same way... it's just not in his character. It's just impossible to picture Obama shouting "mullarkey!" or laughing at his opponent while he's talking, or interrupting his opponent to call out a lie. It's just a personality thing.

-k

After the 1st presidential debate, it was easy to tell who won. Republican supporters were pumping their fists, Democrat supporters were complaining about the moderator and complaining that Romney lied.

After the vice presidential debate, it's just as easy. Democrats are stoked, and Republican supporters are complaining about the moderator and complaining that Biden was rude and disrespectful to Ryan.

Luckily for Republicans, a vice presidential debate probably means next to nothing to voters who are still trying to decide who to support. Democrats are mostly just excited because Biden did all the things Obama ought to have done during the first debate-- he was forceful, authoritative, and most importantly challenged directly Ryan on falsehoods.

Unfortunately for Obama, he can't really do it the same way... it's just not in his character. It's just impossible to picture Obama shouting "mullarkey!" or laughing at his opponent while he's talking, or interrupting his opponent to call out a lie. It's just a personality thing.

-k

Claiming mularkey is not proof of a lie. Biden told more than his fair share of whoppers.

Depending on what partisan media you are reading they both told whoppers. But the MSM says mostly it was just "Joe being Joe", giving him a pass, while Ryan stretches the truth.

[Pliny]

The better question is where did that money come from in order to go somewhere.

Thin air.

[GostHacked]

Thin air.

By that we know the true value of this so called money.

[kimmy]

I don't really need to post anything about the subprime mortgage situation because dre has all that covered, but I will anyway.

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.

Your version of history is false. This has been covered repeatedly, but for your benefit we'll summarize the key points again.

-from 2002 to 2005, the share of all mortgages securitized through Fannie and Freddie fell from 50% to 30%, and private-label securitization went from 10% to 40% of all mortgages.

-in 2004, Fannie and Freddie held 48% of sub-prime mortgages that existed, and by 2006 Fannie and Freddy held just 24% of sub-prime mortgages that existed.

-in 2006, 84% of sub-prime mortgages issued were securitized through private institutions.

The very years that the housing bubble was forming were the years that Fannie and Freddie's share of the market shrank and private mortgage securitization went through the roof.

So attempting to blame it on Fannie and Freddie just doesn't work. It's completely contradicted by the facts. The housing bubble formed during the years when private institutions were securitizing mortgages so fast that Fannie and Freddie's share of the market shrank dramatically. And Fannie and Freddie's share of subprime mortgages shrank even more dramatically than their share of overall mortgages.

Those are the facts. The facts are that private institutions aggressively pursued sub-prime mortgages, not because Clinton or Congress made them do it, but because that was a business decision they made.

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.

Again, this is laughable. Here are the Team Free Market guys-- the guys who say government ought to step back and let businesses decide how to make money-- saying that the government ought to have told the private banks to stop. It's especially hilarious coming from you, a guy who has continuously argued that business makes better decisions than government.

If Ron Paul and George Bush were "concerned" in 2006, why weren't the investment banks? What makes Ron Paul and George Bush more knowledgeable about investment banking than investment bankers??

(I believe you about Ron Paul, because he's always concerned. I'm skeptical that George Bush was concerned, however, because I remember him on my TV talking about how great it was for lower-income people to own homes-- how pride of ownership would transform poor communities, and things like that. Growth of home ownership during his tenure was something he was proud of.)

And we all know-- all of us know-- what the reaction from the bankers and their lobbyists would have been in 2006 if somebody from the government had gone out and said "the subprime mortgage market is growing too fast and we as a government have to take action to slow it down." And we all know what you Team Free Market guys would have said about that at the time as well.

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.

What I am doing is attempting to confront this fiction that Shady and Seinfeld and Kraychik have been spreading, that the government made the housing bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis and the Wall Street collapse happen.

"b-b-but they made banks give subprime mortgages to minorities!"

"b-b-but they lowered the standards!"

"b-b-but they *enabled* it!"

All revisionist history that attempts to deny the role the banks had in choosing their own demise.

-k

[kimmy]

Claiming mularkey is not proof of a lie. Biden told more than his fair share of whoppers.

Depending on what partisan media you are reading they both told whoppers. But the MSM says mostly it was just "Joe being Joe", giving him a pass, while Ryan stretches the truth.

Well, as we saw following the first debate, the appearance of "winning" is more important than the actual truthiness of the claims being made.

-k

[punked]

Claiming mularkey is not proof of a lie. Biden told more than his fair share of whoppers.

Depending on what partisan media you are reading they both told whoppers. But the MSM says mostly it was just "Joe being Joe", giving him a pass, while Ryan stretches the truth.

Yah like when he claimed Ryan asked for stimulus twice after saying he never asked for stimulus and the real number of times Ryan actually requested stimulus was 4 times. That Biden he really needs to get his numbers right, his point is useless unless he points out that he is under selling Ryan's lies. Clearly Ryan won because Biden didn't point out that Ryans lies are so big that when he is refuting them he has to undersell them so the American people can believe it because the actual truth is the Ryan/Romney camp is telling huge huge lies. Win goes to Ryan for that.

Yah like when he claimed Ryan asked for stimulus twice after saying he never asked for stimulus and the real number of times Ryan actually requested stimulus was 4 times. That Biden he really needs to get his numbers right, his point is useless unless he points out that he is under selling Ryan's lies. Clearly Ryan won because Biden didn't point out that Ryans lies are so big that when he is refuting them he has to undersell them so the American people can believe it because the actual truth is the Ryan/Romney camp is telling huge huge lies. Win goes to Ryan for that.

[Pliny]

By that we know the true value of this so called money.

Mere tokens.

[Pliny]

Well, as we saw following the first debate, the appearance of "winning" is more important than the actual truthiness of the claims being made.

-k

Back and forth with stats and figures and he said, they said belies what the American people are living through. That's the truth. Things are not all rosy. Their politics is more divisive and partisan than it has ever been. Blame whomever you like. It matters not a whit.

[CPCFTW]

After the 1st presidential debate, it was easy to tell who won. Republican supporters were pumping their fists, Democrat supporters were complaining about the moderator and complaining that Romney lied.

After the vice presidential debate, it's just as easy. Democrats are stoked, and Republican supporters are complaining about the moderator and complaining that Biden was rude and disrespectful to Ryan.

After the Obama debate, everyone said Obama lost. Not so for Ryan in this case. The polls are split, Republicans say Ryan won, and Democrats say biden won.

This was a VP debate and was fairly evenly matched. It should have no impact on Romney's momentum. Romney is surging and the next debate could be pretty decisive.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

[punked]

After the Obama debate, everyone said Obama lost. Not so for Ryan in this case. The polls are split, Republicans say Ryan won, and Democrats say biden won.

This was a VP debate and was fairly evenly matched. It should have no impact on Romney's momentum. Romney is surging and the next debate could be pretty decisive.

http://www.realclear...obama-1171.html

Which Mitt are you talking about, I seriously don't know. So which one are you supporting? The Left wing Liberal Mitt, the Right wing Conservative Mitt? Which one?

Maybe it is Mitt the great tax dodger you support. Rolling Stone has a great article out about how Mitt dodged his fair share of taxes.

On his 2010 tax return, Romney disclosed that his wife Ann's trust held $3 million in a Swiss bank account at UBS, which had just been busted by the IRS for abetting criminal tax evasion by U.S. citizens. As part of a $780 million settlement, UBS was forced to turn over the names of thousands of its long-secret clients, who were then offered a partial amnesty: disclose their hidden assets, pay penalties and avoid prosecution. Romney – who had omitted the Swiss account on previous financial disclosures – suddenly came clean. Did he reveal his secret account to avoid prosecution for tax evasion? "He's not quite denied that," says Daniel Shaviro, a professor of tax law at NYU. The record of paying an IRS penalty on the Swiss account could explain why Romney has been so determined to keep his 2009 tax return under wraps.

http://www.rollingst...-dodge-20121012

Edited October 13, 2012 by punked

[Pliny]

Which Mitt are you talking about, I seriously don't know. So which one are you supporting? The Left wing Liberal Mitt, the Right wing Conservative Mitt? Which one?

Maybe it is Mitt the great tax dodger you support. Rolling Stone has a great article out about how Mitt dodged his fair share of taxes.

http://www.rollingst...-dodge-20121012

Yep. When you haven't got a record to run on it's going to be a big election about little things. The "fact" Romney is a great tax dodger and evader means he is a felon for sure. How come he isn't in jail??? Gosh....good question...maybe he isn't a felon.

These "little" accusative implications have absolutely nothing to do with how America is fairing these days. Deflect and obsfuscate seems to be the message. Six trillion in debt over 3 1/2 years? Bush's fault entirely. Unemployment dropping to 7.8%? The economy is on the mend...we're on the right track. Economic growth declining year to year? We still have a way to go. We've created 5 million jobs over the past 4 years? The economy is healing. GM is having record sales? The auto industry is healthy.

If you believe all those things ideology and/or idolatry has you blinded.

[Pliny]

I don't really need to post anything about the subprime mortgage situation because dre has all that covered, but I will anyway.

Your version of history is false. This has been covered repeatedly, but for your benefit we'll summarize the key points again.

-from 2002 to 2005, the share of all mortgages securitized through Fannie and Freddie fell from 50% to 30%, and private-label securitization went from 10% to 40% of all mortgages.

A real picture would include not only percentages but quantities. Fannie and Freddie's share should have been zero if they were concerned about subprime mortgages.

-in 2004, Fannie and Freddie held 48% of sub-prime mortgages that existed, and by 2006 Fannie and Freddy held just 24% of sub-prime mortgages that existed.

In 2008 they held 70%. Once again percentages are just statistics.

-in 2006, 84% of sub-prime mortgages issued were securitized through private institutions.

No need to worry Fanny and Freddie will buy them...after all they seem to approve.

The very years that the housing bubble was forming were the years that Fannie and Freddie's share of the market shrank and private mortgage securitization went through the roof.

Percentages...percentages. No actual numbers? The number of mortgages handed out was getting pretty high.

So attempting to blame it on Fannie and Freddie just doesn't work. It's completely contradicted by the facts. The housing bubble formed during the years when private institutions were securitizing mortgages so fast that Fannie and Freddie's share of the market shrank dramatically. And Fannie and Freddie's share of subprime mortgages shrank even more dramatically than their share of overall mortgages.

Those are the facts. The facts are that private institutions aggressively pursued sub-prime mortgages, not because Clinton or Congress made them do it, but because that was a business decision they made.

Of course they did.... they had the wink, wink nudge nudge from Fannie and Freddie who shared in their creation.

Again, this is laughable. Here are the Team Free Market guys-- the guys who say government ought to step back and let businesses decide how to make money-- saying that the government ought to have told the private banks to stop. It's especially hilarious coming from you, a guy who has continuously argued that business makes better decisions than government.

If Ron Paul and George Bush were "concerned" in 2006, why weren't the investment banks? What makes Ron Paul and George Bush more knowledgeable about investment banking than investment bankers??

(I believe you about Ron Paul, because he's always concerned. I'm skeptical that George Bush was concerned, however, because I remember him on my TV talking about how great it was for lower-income people to own homes-- how pride of ownership would transform poor communities, and things like that. Growth of home ownership during his tenure was something he was proud of.)

And we all know-- all of us know-- what the reaction from the bankers and their lobbyists would have been in 2006 if somebody from the government had gone out and said "the subprime mortgage market is growing too fast and we as a government have to take action to slow it down." And we all know what you Team Free Market guys would have said about that at the time as well.

What I am doing is attempting to confront this fiction that Shady and Seinfeld and Kraychik have been spreading, that the government made the housing bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis and the Wall Street collapse happen.

"b-b-but they made banks give subprime mortgages to minorities!"

"b-b-but they lowered the standards!"

"b-b-but they *enabled* it!"

All revisionist history that attempts to deny the role the banks had in choosing their own demise.

-k

History is fabricated by the movers and shakers not the losers. Those that could predict the future were once again ignored in writing the history.

[dre]

Omar Khadr did nothing wrong. He was a soldier in a war and he killed the enemy. All soldiers aspire to the same.

That said, he was made a prisoner of war and he should remain one until the war is over. Could be a while.

He should get his red cross parcels and be watched carefully while out walking in the yard in case he tries to dispose of soil down his pant legs.

He should not be back in Canada.

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.

Well you've come a long way from your original position a year ago of the big bad banks on Wall Street did it all. You've obviously done some reading.

I doubt you've read more on ABC (Austrian Business Cycle) theory than myself. The theory of marginal utility goes far in explaining the behavior of people in the market.

I don't think you have ever mentioned the creation of "moral hazard" which gives socialists the ammo to attack capitalism as immoral.

Someone has to say no on these immoral rocket rides and no one did in the case of the housing crisis. Unfortunately, big daddy from the nanny state said just keep on doing what you are doing. No one wanted to see the other guy making all the money and they all piled in with the sanction of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, et al.

What it boils down to is when regulation from the government is supposed to guide the market, the market looks to government for guidance. It got guidance real hard. The regulation is copious, complex and arbitrary. When fiscal policy is loose and the Fed wants to heat up the economy it looks like a good guy and Wall Street becomes awash in cash, lending becomes easy. Banks are the first place where new money shows up.and it works its way into the economy from there. The idea is to get people spending and consuming which will drive production. The problem is it is a false economy built on a flush of new money and that money in the crash will disappear. The worst thing to do is inject new money with bailouts and government borrowing. It might help for awhile keeping things from completely tanking but it will be devastating in the long term. Economists have obviously got a plan but it's not working and they will blame the global economy when it all comes tumbling down. It will be the market or the policies of the Republicans, if Romney is elected. Hoarders will be vilified and it will probably be illegal again to own gold and silver if that is where people are putting their paper money tokens.

The US deficit has been over a trillion dollars for the last four years but no one is asking where that money is going??? Where is a trillion dollars a year being spent? There hasn't been a budget passed in congress for three years thanks to Harry Reid.

Enough said.

Well you've come a long way from your original position a year ago of the big bad banks on Wall Street did it all. You've obviously done some reading.

Its not an either/or thing. And my position hasnt changed at all. Investment banks and private lenders deserve a huge share of the blame.

I don't think you have ever mentioned the creation of "moral hazard"

No why would I? Thats just your war of blaming your favorite boogeyman (big bad government) when the private sector misbehaves. Whey would anyone give a second thought to that?

and they all piled in with the sanction of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, et al.

This is just mindless partisan hackery.

[dre]

A real picture would include not only percentages but quantities. Fannie and Freddie's share should have been zero if they were concerned about subprime mortgages.

In 2008 they held 70%. Once again percentages are just statistics.

No need to worry Fanny and Freddie will buy them...after all they seem to approve.

Percentages...percentages. No actual numbers? The number of mortgages handed out was getting pretty high.

Of course they did.... they had the wink, wink nudge nudge from Fannie and Freddie who shared in their creation.

History is fabricated by the movers and shakers not the losers. Those that could predict the future were once again ignored in writing the history.

No need to worry Fanny and Freddie will buy them...after all they seem to approve.

They bought them for the same reason investors around the world did. Because they were nested in the junior tranches of multi layer asset backed securities that were rated AAA by private ratings agencies.

Percentages...percentages. No actual numbers? The number of mortgages handed out was getting pretty high.

Of course it was. There was a housing bubble, and companies like countrywide were giving mortgages to the homeless

[CPCFTW]

Which Mitt are you talking about, I seriously don't know. So which one are you supporting? The Left wing Liberal Mitt, the Right wing Conservative Mitt? Which one?

Maybe it is Mitt the great tax dodger you support. Rolling Stone has a great article out about how Mitt dodged his fair share of taxes.

http://www.rollingst...-dodge-20121012

That video of sound bites hardly makes any sense. If you bothered to watch the full debate you would see how out of context they try to frame Romney's comments.

Even if Romney dodged taxes, which I doubt, I don't blame him when he's already paying millions of dollars in taxes, and donates millions more to charities. Dodging taxes isn't an affront to humanity IMO... there was a time when people didn't cheer on the taxman.

[dre]

That video of sound bites hardly makes any sense. If you bothered to watch the full debate you would see how out of context they try to frame Romney's comments.

Even if Romney dodged taxes, which I doubt, I don't blame him when he's already paying millions of dollars in taxes, and donates millions more to charities. Dodging taxes isn't an affront to humanity IMO... there was a time when people didn't cheer on the taxman.

Well it depends on what you actually do to dodge taxes I guess. But if I defraud the government out of 10k that I owe in taxes, it just means that money is going to have to come from somewhere else. So Im really just stealing from other tax payers.

[CPCFTW]

Well it depends on what you actually do to dodge taxes I guess. But if I defraud the government out of 10k that I owe in taxes, it just means that money is going to have to come from somewhere else. So Im really just stealing from other tax payers.

It's not stealing anything. If the government said the tax rate was 99% and you hid your income because of that, would you say you were stealing from other taxpayers, or that the government was ripping you off?

Romney pays millions in taxes, just because lefties have some weird obsession with effective tax rates, doesn't mean he is stealing from them. He probably pays more to the government in one year than all the members of this forum combined will pay for the next decade.

[jbg]

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.

The encouragement to lend in depressed areas was a very small part of the problem. The bigger problem was the securitization of loans. Banks could make loans, sell hem immediately, and keep a fee for doing so. Thus, the originating bank had no concern with the ability of the borrower to pay.

The banks made money hand over fist by lending to willing borrowers. People such as myself are not so lucrative as borrowers to most lenders since we pay in full every month.

[Shady]

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.

Yes. A certain percentage of subprime loans was mandated by law. Banks had to set a side a small percentage of mortgages for subprime qualfiers. When that goes on for several years, those types of risky mortgages add up. And then we have what took place, a bubble, that ends up bursting.

[punked]

Yes. A certain percentage of subprime loans was mandated by law. Banks had to set a side a small percentage of mortgages for subprime qualfiers. When that goes on for several years, those types of risky mortgages add up. And then we have what took place, a bubble, that ends up bursting.

NO SHADY! Those sub primes were given out for 20 years with out a problem because there is a portion of those in the high risk category who will work hard to pay off their debts. IT WAS WHEN BANKS not Government, started giving out sub primes to anyone and everyone so they could quickly sell them to German banks, or mutual funds for a quick buck that it became a problem. THE BANKS were the ones selling these over and above the government mandate. It had nothing to do with the government mandate. Although I am sure Bush's house for every citizen policy had nothing to do with that problem right?