2012 debates

[punked]

You are positively joking.

Considering it was 1.2 Trillion when he took office and this year it is going to be 1.09 Trillion no, no he is not joking. Doubling means a 2.4 Trillion dollar deficit. I would also like to point out that this month America actually took in more money then it paid out. September had a 75 BILLLION dollar surplus. Canad had a 1.2 Billion dollar deficit but hey who is counting when you can go on gut felling right? F facts.

[sharkman]

Again Obama had to ram it through Congress so that you know the two dying Senators that were wheeled in out of the hospitable (one of which this bill was his lifes work) could break the Republican filibuster because the Republicans wouldn't sit one of their members out for the dying guy.

Those who vote for it though knew what was in it because they wrote it.

That is the way politics is played, the Dems wouldn't sit one of their members out. They did some nasty things during the Bush years, that is the way of power.

Edited October 7, 2012 by sharkman

[punked]

That is the way politics is played, the Dems wouldn't sit one of their members out. They did some nasty things during the Bush years, that is the way of power.

Then don't get mad they have to ram a bill through when two of their members literally had to be wheeled in from the their death beds. You want time to read the bill don't create a circumstance where there is a time limit that your side is enforcing. You want to read the bill sit one of your members out so that the proper things can happen instead of filibustering EVERYTHING, all the time.

Edited October 7, 2012 by punked

[Bitsy]

Read that last part? That's the real kicker, and it was written in 1999! "In moving into this ne area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on SIGNIFICANTLY MORE RISK, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times, but MAY RUN INTO TROUBLE IN AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN." Well, surprise, surprise, that's exactly what happened, all thanks to the so-called good intentions of the Democratic Party.

Interesting that you chose to omit this:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

snip

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers.

[sharkman]

Then don't get mad they have to ram a bill through when two of their members literally had to be wheeled in from the their death beds. You want time to read the bill don't create a circumstance where there is a time limit that your side is enforcing. You want to read the bill sit one of your members out so that the proper things can happen instead of filibustering EVERYTHING, all the time.

So again, why are you upset that Romney's not naming specifics?

[sharkman]

Considering it was 1.2 Trillion when he took office and this year it is going to be 1.09 Trillion no, no he is not joking. Doubling means a 2.4 Trillion dollar deficit. I would also like to point out that this month America actually took in more money then it paid out. September had a 75 BILLLION dollar surplus. Canad had a 1.2 Billion dollar deficit but hey who is counting when you can go on gut felling right? F facts.

So do you think Obama is going to be able to cut the deficit in half after all? Although at 4 years, it's a little late.

[punked]

So do you think Obama is going to be able to cut the deficit in half after all? Although at 4 years, it's a little late.

Better then blowing a 5 trillion dollar hole I am the debt like Romney has promised to do. Oh yah I forgot you don't care about facts you go o, your gut. Fact is if you card about the deficit or debt you wouldn't support Romney a man who promises more tax cuts to blow more wholes in the deficit.

[sharkman]

Well I wouldn't support Obama under those specifics, a trillion a year for 4 more years(And you can only call it 5 trillion for Romney because he's not telling yet)? Maybe you should spoil your ballot.

Edit: come to think of it, since that 5 trillion is over 10 years, that's only 500 billion a year give or take. Romney's a steal!

Edited October 7, 2012 by sharkman

[punked]

Well I wouldn't support Obama under those specifics, a trillion a year for 4 more years(And you can only call it 5 trillion for Romney because he's not telling yet)? Maybe you should spoil your ballot.

Edit: come to think of it, since that 5 trillion is over 10 years, that's only 500 billion a year give or take. Romney's a steal!

So now that Obama has the deficit lower then when he came into office and had a surplus for the month of September's someone addition g 500 billion more to the deficit. Is a steal? Wow conservatives are the kings of double speak. I don't know how you hate Obama for bringing down the deficit but support a guy who promises to increase it by 50 percent a year.

I do get though. It isn't about policy or voting for someone who promises to do worse then the guy you are criticisizing on the same issues because the President is black and that just ain't right. That has to be the t because Romney is promising to do a worse job on all the issues you speak of yet you keep supporting him.

Edited October 7, 2012 by punked

[sharkman]

And now you want to base your support of Obama on one month of surplus? He promised he'd cut the deficit per year in half, and in 4 years he hasn't done it, it's stayed at the trillion level. It doesn't compute, punked. On top of it, now you play the race card. Grow up.

Obama's 4 year performance has been terrible, but a blind supporter like you can't see it or even let it be explained to you. That's what's wrong with the political atmosphere down there today, the two sides are completely polarized and getting closer to riots during the elections.

[punked]

And now you want to base your support of Obama on one month of surplus? He promised he'd cut the deficit per year in half, and in 4 years he hasn't done it, it's stayed at the trillion level. It doesn't compute, punked. On top of it, now you play the race card. Grow up.

Obama's 4 year performance has been terrible, but a blind supporter like you can't see it or even let it be explained to you. That's what's wrong with the political atmosphere down there today, the two sides are completely polarized and getting closer to riots during the elections.

Your problem with Obama is he hasn't cut the deficit enough, so your solution is to support a guy who promises to make the deficit bigger. Just to be clear that is what you are saying. So don't vote for Obama he only cut the deficit by a billion dollars in the worst recession in history, Vote for Romney he promises to increase the deficit (ps stimulus sucks). Seems like a weird argument to me.

I am not a blind supporter of anything. Reagan also promised to the cut the deficit but found he couldn't during a recession. Although Obama actually has cut the deficit by about a 100 billion from the time he came in office which is better then Reagan. Yet your side is always talking about what an Amazing President Reagan was. Sometime getting people back to work and starting up the American economy takes precedented over other things. Those are realities and I am willing to cut the guy some slack on that.

Edited October 7, 2012 by punked

[msj]

[in your status update]

Gore, Matthews and Maher all say Obama's debate performance sucked. I guess you know it's true if your own side is saying it.

Yes, we know that Romney outperformed Obama.

What's important is what happens after the debate.

My earlier example of a picture of Romney (see my signature below) laughing at "getting" Big Bird compared to Obama getting Bin Laden is a fine example.

This picture is floating around websites, twitter, and FB and will likely be seen by millions of people by election day.

It is not a flattering picture of Romney.

As for Presidential debates in general here is a good primer: Do Presidential Debates Usually Matter?

[sharkman]

Your problem with Obama is he hasn't cut the deficit enough, so your solution is to support a guy who promises to make the deficit bigger. Just to be clear that is what you are saying. So don't vote for Obama he only cut the deficit by a billion dollars in the worst recession in history, Vote for Romney he promises to increase the deficit (ps stimulus sucks). Seems like a weird argument to me.

I am not a blind supporter of anything. Reagan also promised to the cut the deficit but found he couldn't during a recession. Although Obama actually has cut the deficit by about a 100 billion from the time he came in office which is better then Reagan. Yet your side is always talking about what an Amazing President Reagan was. Sometime getting people back to work and starting up the American economy takes precedented over other things. Those are realities and I am willing to cut the guy some slack on that.

You have politics in your blood and you are a true believer for your causes, someone who will make a difference. We can't agree on any of this, but I bet you'd be a good person to work with. At times like this I am reminded of an old movie quote, can't remember if it was Forrest Gump or something else, "Politics is a bunch of shit."

[punked]

You have politics in your blood and you are a true believer for your causes, someone who will make a difference. We can't agree on any of this, but I bet you'd be a good person to work with. At times like this I am reminded of an old movie quote, can't remember if it was Forrest Gump or something else, "Politics is a bunch of shit."

Well at least we can find common ground and agree on this statement. It is a start.

[cybercoma]

Yep only Liberals want evidence, plans, and to ask real informative questions. Conservatives just go with their gut.

Just look at the states that vote conservative.

[sharkman]

Yes, we know that Romney outperformed Obama.

What's important is what happens after the debate.

My earlier example of a picture of Romney (see my signature below) laughing at "getting" Big Bird compared to Obama getting Bin Laden is a fine example.

This picture is floating around websites, twitter, and FB and will likely be seen by millions of people by election day.

It is not a flattering picture of Romney.

As for Presidential debates in general here is a good primer: Do Presidential Debates Usually Matter?

And this is a good, nay a perfect example of the media biasing a story to get more out of it than exists. Romney said straight off that he likes big bird. Big bird is one single character on one show on a network of many shows. So the media's response? Romney hates big bird. It's so typical of them to slant things like this. But they couldn't slant the debate, that was unedited and shown before the entire nation, and polls today say Romney got a bump out of it. So out come the attacks that Romney lied, Romney cheated, Obama was suffering from the thin Denver air, oh and Romney's a flip flopper.

At the end of the day, you may be right, maybe these debates won't help Romney. One thing is for sure, they sure ain't gonna help Obama if the first one is any indication.

Edited to add: This is my theory, why Romney is playing his cards close to his chest on some of the details. He let out that he wants to cut funding for PBS and the next day the dem reporters are saying he wants to off big bird. It's childish, surely PBS can sell more commecial time like EVERY OTHER NETWORK and with the fundraising machine they have make up the difference. They may have to even(gasp) tighten their belts.

Edited October 7, 2012 by sharkman

[madmax]

Romney said straight off that he likes big bird. Big bird is one single character on one show on a network of many shows. So the media's response?

Romney: Soft on Wall Street TOUGH ON SESAME STREET

[msj]

Edited to add: This is my theory, why Romney is playing his cards close to his chest on some of the details. He let out that he wants to cut funding for PBS and the next day the dem reporters are saying he wants to off big bird. It's childish, surely PBS can sell more commecial time like EVERY OTHER NETWORK and with the fundraising machine they have make up the difference. They may have to even(gasp) tighten their belts.

And this is a good, nay a perfect example of the media biasing a story to get more out of it than exists. Romney said straight off that he likes big bird. Big bird is one single character on one show on a network of many shows. So the media's response? Romney hates big bird. It's so typical of them to slant things like this.

This is hardly the MSM.

As far as I can tell it is going viral - FB, twitter etc....

All it takes is some photoshop which even I'm capable of (and I'm a tax accountant).

The Dems would be crazy not to push this photo.

[madmax]

The people here debating policy in this thread, are really missing whats happening.

Sometimes, Winning a Debate DOES create the momentum for a Candidate to Secure the win and it will take something just as monumentous to stop it.

I personally think this is over.

When 78% believe that this is a WHOLE NEW RACE, those numbers are staggering. Its not that Romney won the debate, its that the public mindset has changed after the debate. It has been enough to make people take notice. Sometimes you can win a debate but really no one cares and its NOT a game changer.

The first debate is a game changer... and its going to take something big to stop the run on the polls.

The Shift has moved Romney into contention and in some cases a lead.

This should never have happened and it would well cost Obama his presidency.

People don't care , who said what, or who lied or misled.

People LIKE WINNERS and in this case Romney won and It doesn't like like the Democrats have figured out they are in a far worse state then simply losing a debate. They have lost the confidence of ALOT of voters.

Getting that back, is not going to be ez.

This has all the make up of a RUN ON THE BANK

Edited October 7, 2012 by madmax

[punked]

Edited to add: This is my theory, why Romney is playing his cards close to his chest on some of the details. He let out that he wants to cut funding for PBS and the next day the dem reporters are saying he wants to off big bird. It's childish, surely PBS can sell more commecial time like EVERY OTHER NETWORK and with the fundraising machine they have make up the difference. They may have to even(gasp) tighten their belts.

I agree but this is the thing isn't it? When the argument is tax hikes for the rich vs. Cuts to programs with no details the tax hikes poll poorly however when we actually start to talk about what those cuts would be (programs people use and like) that tax hike polls very well. Which is my point Romney won't have the mandate to cut any programs unless he tells peoe what he will cut so they can vote on it. If he gets elected on a platform that does not spell his plans out he won't be able to get anything done and will be much much worse then even Bush who at least got a mandate on many of his ideas fro. I the American people. That is why details are important.

[kimmy]

Read that last part? That's the real kicker, and it was written in 1999! "In moving into this ne area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on SIGNIFICANTLY MORE RISK, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times, but MAY RUN INTO TROUBLE IN AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN." Well, surprise, surprise, that's exactly what happened, all thanks to the so-called good intentions of the Democratic Party.

Oh, and just recently we found out one of the principle individuals most outspoken in initiating these lowering of lending standards. His name? BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

After posting this undebunkable information, I don't wanna hear a peep out of you punked, or your misinformation, degenerate partner in crime kimmy. You guys don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Good for you, Shady, you found an article and used the hyperlink function correctly. Special congratulations on your use of red, bold, and font-size. That really looks impressive.

Too bad the article doesn't make the point you want it to.

We're all aware that Fannie Mae was directed by the government to increase loans to poor people.

The point that you've been challenged on, again and again, and that your article doesn't address at all, is that private lenders gave out sub-prime mortgages at a far greater rate than any law or quota required them to.

The reality is that the CRA and Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the housing bubble. The housing bubble occurred when private lenders plunged into the market in a huge way, giving out risky mortgages that Fanny and Freddie weren't allowed to. During 2002 to 2006, Fannie and Freddie's market share shrank dramatically as subprime mortgages from private lenders *exploded*.

from 2002-2005, [GSEs] saw a fairly precipitous drop in market share, going from about 50% to just under 30% of all mortgage originations. Conversely, private label securitization [PLS] shot up from about 10% to about 40% over the same period. This is, to state the obvious, a very radical shift in mortgage originations that overlapped neatly with the origination of the most toxic home loans.

By 2006, 84% of subprime mortgages were lent by private lenders, not Fannie and Freddie.

And it wasn't the CRA that made private lenders do it, either:

half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves.

24 of the 25 biggest lenders of sub-prime mortgages weren't even *subject* to the requirements of the CRA.

During the housing bubble, Fannie and Freddie were actually *reducing* their subprime mortgages.

Paul Krugman:

But here’s the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.

Partly that’s because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didn’t do any subprime lending, because they can’t: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn’t meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.

Private lenders' share of the mortgage market went through the roof:

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

The Bush administraction actually *reduced* the requirements of the CRA in 2004:

In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.

The Private Label Securitizers (PLS) also backed far riskier mortgages than the Government Sponsored Enterprices (GSEs... Fannie and Freddie):

Moreover, this point also papers over the fact that PLS loans have defaulted at over 6x the rate of GSE loans, as well as the fact that private label securitization is responsible for 42% of all delinquencies despite accounting for only 13% of all outstanding loans (as compared to the GSEs being responsible for 22% of all delinquencies despite accounting for 57% of all outstanding loans).

To summarize:

both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, especially the private label securitization channel (PLS) market. The Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie) were not behind them. The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.

Private lenders were the ones who had the lowest standards.

Private lenders were the ones who put the subprime mortgage market into high gear between 2002 and 2006.

Mortages required to meet CRA quotas constitute a tiny fraction of the subprime mortgages given out during that time.

The idea that you can blame it on the CRA or Fannie and Freddie is laughable. Private institutions jumped on subprime mortgages with both feet.

So why?

The only explanation you've offered as to why the private lenders dove so heavily into sub-prime mortgages was this:

In particular, it was government institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that were the chief architects of these new loans. Private banks had a choice to either compete with Freddie and Fannie, or lose business. That can't be debunked because it's fact. No matter how many times you wanna bury your head in your ass and refuse to accept the truth.

Which is hilarious! Because up until yesterday, your story has been that banks never wanted to lend to these people at all! Congress made them do it! Congress made the banks give mortgages to people who shouldn't have had mortgages! Barack Hussein Obama and the courts made them do it! The banks had no choice!

You've gone from telling us that the banks didn't want to be in that business at all, to telling us that banks *needed* to compete for this business. It's a fascinating 180-degree reversal that really illustrate your credibility.

You're right about this much, though: the banks didn't want to compete with Fannie and Freddie for sub-prime loans... they wanted that business for themselves.

Here is an interesting read on that subject: somebody compiled speeches and testimony from the American Enterprise Institute from the early 2000s on the subject, all of them pushing the argument that the GSEs weren't needed because private securitization was doing way more to help minorities and poor-people get mortgages.

As for this...

I guess I'll have to kick you in the teeth once again, along with kimmy, who actually has no teeth left to kick in.

...I must have missed when that happened. Actually I don't think I can recall any time on this forum, ever, where you've kicked anybody's teeth in in a debate. Huge hubris from a guy whose usual M.O. is to post some troll comments and then duck out when people start debating them.

And as for this stuff...

your misinformation, degenerate partner in crime kimmy.

Obviously there's no point in discussing this with you. You have no idea what the Canada Health Act is, and how it pertains to the provincial health care system. The Charter has nothing to do with it. Just when I think kimmy's the dumbest member of forum, you step up and change my mind.

...I'm pretty surprised that you can post garbage like this while so many other people have been sent to the cooler lately.

-k

[kimmy]

5)This is just another case where Romney has the right to adjust his plan to make it more acceptable to his prospective employer, the American people. So to claim he's lying is just being obtuse.

Do you really think Romney adjusted his plan? Came up with a new policy to make sure people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage... and forgot to tell his campaign?

Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's top campaign official, was doing interviews the day *after* the debate, clarifying that Romney's "plan" actually doesn't include anything about protecting people with pre-existing conditions. Do you think Romney came up with a new plan and just forgot to tell his top guy? And that the Romney campaign has in the days since the debate somehow forgotten to announce this exciting new policy or post it on their website, or do anything to publicize it other than have Eric Fehrnstrom running around telling the media that there isn't actually a new policy?

Of course not. You'd have to be an idiot to believe that's the case, and I know you're not an idiot.

We all know what happened. Romney knew that his real position is unpopular, so he misrepresented his position, and had his advisor go around clarifying the real position the day after, when 67 million people weren't paying attention.

-k

[sharkman]

So Romney decides to go on national TV and tell an easily found out lie?

That seems also like something an idiot would do, don' you think? I suspect that something else is in play, hard to read the tea leaves at this point.

So it seems you agree with some of my response, or at least don't disagree enough to mention it! At any rate, many baseless attackes will be made on both camps as we get closer and it will be tough for actual facts to float to the top.

Edited October 7, 2012 by sharkman

[punked]

So Romney decides to go on national TV and tell an easily found out lie?

That seems also like something an idiot would do, don' you think? I suspect that something else is in play, hard to read the tea leaves at this point.

Nope it is just that. He thinks that because he is on the national stage, in a National television debate that he can those big lies because only and idiot would go up there and do that. It is the craziest thing I ever seen.

Here is another one Romney said that a 90 Billion dollar green energy program had 50% of its businesses file for bankruptcy. Well the program was actually 21 Billion and less then 1% of business in that programs have gone belly up. That is a HUGE LIE which is easily checked, anyone can do it.

He literally just went on stage and tried to create his own reality out side of facts which can be checked.

[sharkman]

Nope it is just that. He thinks that because he is on the national stage, in a National television debate that he can those big lies because only and idiot would go up there and do that. It is the craziest thing I ever seen.

Here is another one Romney said that a 90 Billion dollar green energy program had 50% of its businesses file for bankruptcy. Well the program was actually 21 Billion and less then 1% of business in that programs have gone belly up. That is a HUGE LIE which is easily checked, anyone can do it.

He literally just went on stage and tried to create his own reality out side of facts which can be checked.

Who said that 50% of the businesses go bankrupt? Link and quote please! I thought you said this money was a loan and so it was all coming back to the government, now you say that some of the companies have gone bankrupt. Does that mean not all of the money is coming back after all?