Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 89
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Well to be more specific, they won't go back to being Goldwater Republicans any time soon
    I guess you're not a Newsweek reader?
    - to which I hope you're wrong. Interestingly enough, I think over 53% of Catholics are now saying they will vote for Obama.
    That's not surprising really. Catholics have historically had much more liberal social views than many give them credit for. Abortion is their only real 'conservative' issue.
    Other than the most strident evangelicals I have to wonder if social conservatism will ever regain the influence it once enjoyed in the GOP? [...]
    Not sure if I'm getting you here? Seems to me that social conservatism is running to rampant in the GOP. _Fiscal_ conservatism has left the ranch in order to give way to 'compassionate' conservatism (Read: tax-cut and spend overseas).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I don't blame greed or lying. I blame legislation that set out to turn poor people into home owners, and I blame the ecosystem that fed and fed off of that process.
    How much do you blame 'compassionate' conservatism and Bush's 'ownership society' concepts?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3.    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I guess you're not a Newsweek reader?
    I read it on-line when I remember to do so. Great article though. Barry had a certain flair, didn't he? I didn't even know he did this. Neat piece of history. But my reference to Barry was in his fiscal conservative views and disdain for the GOPs move to social conservatism to broaden their base. He was not perfect.

    That's not surprising really. Catholics have historically had much more liberal social views than many give them credit for. Abortion is their only real 'conservative' issue.
    Well I think Bush carried them all in 2004 the white catholics in both 2000 and 2004. http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=103

    Not sure if I'm getting you here? Seems to me that social conservatism is running to rampant in the GOP.
    I don't think that it is anymore if McCain loses. Right now they are throwing everything and anything against the wall to see what sticks; wedge issues are in the mix, but don't seem to be working as well as they did for Bush.

    _Fiscal_ conservatism has left the ranch in order to give way to 'compassionate' conservatism (Read: tax-cut and spend overseas).
    We're in full agreement here.
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Frank is directly responsible for Freddie Mac because he's the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee which oversees Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. For years, he strongly opposed closer supervision, and he argued that the risks were exaggerated. He was wrong.
    That is a distortion. Sorry. You obviously did not read the links I posted and you obviously want to place this in Frank's lap rather than rationally discuss ALL of the contributing factors. He was no more directly responsible than the Republicans who were in the house and senate from 1996 to 2006; no more directly responsible than the Republican President who had a Republican senate and house for 6 years of his Presidency; nor more directly responsible than the Republicans that made sure Hagel's bill was never voted on; and no more directly responsible than the greedy banks, Americans, investors, etc. that all took advantage of the deck of cards that was our financial system.

    He was wrong in his assessment but his opinions weren't as directly an influence as some Republicans would have us believe.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I don't blame greed or lying. I blame legislation that set out to turn poor people into home owners, and I blame the ecosystem that fed and fed off of that process.
    try and watch (if you haven't already) last Sunday's 60 Minutes -- they ran a lengthy and insightful investigative analysis of the underpinnings of the crisis -- its at least their 2nd or 3rd major story that that they have done on it. (I have copies of 2 of them if you can't find it elsewhere.)

    In essence the problem began at the top -- with Wall Street wiz kids who convinced congress to release them from regulations -- regulations that had prevented the unsupervised unregulated speculation and gambling that has now lead to this current meltdown.

    It was the insatiable demand from Wall Street for these "mortgages" that was almost entirely behind this crisis -- and that insatiable hunger was unsupervised -- and the blame for that is with the Fed, the SEC, and junior, who appointed them.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6.    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    try and watch (if you haven't already) last Sunday's 60 Minutes -- they ran a lengthy and insightful investigative analysis of the underpinnings of the crisis -- its at least their 2nd or 3rd major story that that they have done on it. (I have copies of 2 of them if you can't find it elsewhere.)

    In essence the problem began at the top -- with Wall Street wiz kids who convinced congress to release them from regulations -- regulations that had prevented the unsupervised unregulated speculation and gambling that has now lead to this current meltdown.

    It was the insatiable demand from Wall Street for these "mortgages" that was almost entirely behind this crisis -- and that insatiable hunger was unsupervised -- and the blame for that is with the Fed, the SEC, and junior, who appointed them.
    ...all in which secretly work for Barney Franks.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    That is a distortion. Sorry. You obviously did not read the links I posted and you obviously want to place this in Frank's lap rather than rationally discuss ALL of the contributing factors. He was no more directly responsible than the Republicans who were in the house and senate from 1996 to 2006; no more directly responsible than the Republican President who had a Republican senate and house for 6 years of his Presidency; nor more directly responsible than the Republicans that made sure Hagel's bill was never voted on; and no more directly responsible than the greedy banks, Americans, investors, etc. that all took advantage of the deck of cards that was our financial system.

    He was wrong in his assessment but his opinions weren't as directly an influence as some Republicans would have us believe.
    I don't think you understand the word "directly" because your claim that he was no more directly responsible than all those people is absurd and indefensible.

    When a Republican Congressman doesn't support one bill in 2005 that is already actively opposed by all Democrats (led by Frank), he has an indirect effect.

    When Barney Frank actively blocks restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for many years, first as ranking Democrat and then as Chairman, he has direct responsibility.


    If the outcome is the same no matter what you do, then you do not have a direct effect.

    If your very existence and activity makes a difference, then you have direct responsibility for the outcome.
  8.    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I don't think you understand the word "directly" because your claim that he was no more directly responsible than all those people is absurd and indefensible.
    Yes, you're right, I must not understand your rather broad definition of directly.

    When a Republican Congressman
    Congressman, as in singular? Really now? I thought it was a lot more than ONE Republican, but we'll roll with your revisionist version of it.

    doesn't support one bill in 2005 that is already actively opposed by all Democrats (led by Frank), he has an indirect effect.
    Did Frank's opposition stop the bill from going to the floor in a Republican controlled house or not?

    When Barney Frank actively blocks restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for many years, first as ranking Democrat and then as Chairman, he has direct responsibility.

    If the outcome is the same no matter what you do, then you do not have a direct effect.

    If your very existence and activity makes a difference, then you have direct responsibility for the outcome.
    Cite specifics please. Make sure they're not right-wing blogs please and cite specifics.

    While you're at it - please provide links that prove that the Republicans weren't in control of the House and Senate and all committees including the the Financial Services Committee from 1996-2006 and the White House from 2000-2008.

    To summarize your position in this debate: you think that Barney Franks was directly responsible for the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and that all Republicans were merely careless observers that stood idly by while the bus drove over the cliff?
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    try and watch (if you haven't already) last Sunday's 60 Minutes -- they ran a lengthy and insightful investigative analysis of the underpinnings of the crisis -- its at least their 2nd or 3rd major story that that they have done on it. (I have copies of 2 of them if you can't find it elsewhere.)

    In essence the problem began at the top -- with Wall Street wiz kids who convinced congress to release them from regulations -- regulations that had prevented the unsupervised unregulated speculation and gambling that has now lead to this current meltdown.

    It was the insatiable demand from Wall Street for these "mortgages" that was almost entirely behind this crisis -- and that insatiable hunger was unsupervised -- and the blame for that is with the Fed, the SEC, and junior, who appointed them.
    I'm already very familiar with the banking industry. But I'll look for the video.


    You're mixing two separate issues in your post.

    First is the mismeasurement of risk across the banking industry, and the massive interconnectedness of that risk. This is the reason that the crisis spiraled out of control, and bankers and corporations who bought and sold securities they didn't understand are to blame. But this did not cause the crisis. It just made things much, much worse when the crisis hit.

    The crisis was caused by the failure of sub-prime lending - which was a flawed concept from the start.


    That brings us to the second issue. You imply that Wall St was to blame for the sub-prime lending because it made a market in CDOs. That's just complete BS. Investment banks didn't invent sub-prime lending. They didn't make loans to people who couldn't afford to pay. They didn't pass the laws pushing commercial banks to make these loans. The people who built the sub-prime lending industry are most responsible for the crisis.

    It's popular to blame the greed on Wall St for everything, but it's simplistic and wrong.
  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    It's popular to blame the greed on Wall St for everything, but it's simplistic and wrong.
    Agreed.

    What about credit default swaps? What impact did that have?

    http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/0...n-derivatives/
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    it's simplistic and wrong.
    how is this for simplistic and wrong:

    I blame BUSH!!!!
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I'm already very familiar with the banking industry. But I'll look for the video.


    You're mixing two separate issues in your post.

    First is the mismeasurement of risk across the banking industry, and the massive interconnectedness of that risk. This is the reason that the crisis spiraled out of control, and bankers and corporations who bought and sold securities they didn't understand are to blame. But this did not cause the crisis. It just made things much, much worse when the crisis hit.

    The crisis was caused by the failure of sub-prime lending - which was a flawed concept from the start.


    That brings us to the second issue. You imply that Wall St was to blame for the sub-prime lending because it made a market in CDOs. That's just complete BS. Investment banks didn't invent sub-prime lending. They didn't make loans to people who couldn't afford to pay. They didn't pass the laws pushing commercial banks to make these loans. The people who built the sub-prime lending industry are most responsible for the crisis.

    It's popular to blame the greed on Wall St for everything, but it's simplistic and wrong.
    You seem to have a general understanding of the terms and the concepts -- but what you lack is an genuine understanding of how the system worked, what forces were behind the hunger for these "safe" incredibly lucrative and profitable securities.

    You are missing the causality connection. The impetus was from the demand for supply by the companies packaging these securitized mortgages -- securites that were given investment grade rating in large part because of ficticious "insurance".

    Insurance that was itself leveraged unimaginably.

    All this happened because of "regulators" who philosophically thought that capitalism should only be guided by the greedy and the powerful.
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/28/2008 at 04:49 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I don't blame greed or lying. I blame legislation that set out to turn poor people into home owners, and I blame the ecosystem that fed and fed off of that process.
    Legislation didn't set out to turn poor people into homeowners. The market, with a governmental attitude that regulation was bad, did. If you're advocating that the government should have regulated more effectively in order to ensure that this crisis didn't happen, many would agree with you - But it's ironic that this goes entirely against the philosophy of the "party of small government".

    The Republican Party, if it is to survive, needs to entirely get back to its libertarian roots, jettison its obsession with faith-based governance and involving itself in people's bedrooms, and truly get back to believing "those govern best who govern least".
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  14. #54  
    It's always funny to me to read debates about the economy, and whose fault it is. It reminds me of this piece I read on factcheck.org, and I think the last paragraph sums it up well:

    The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.
    "Whenever I feel like exercise I lie down until the feeling passes."
    -Robert Maynard Hutchins


    Palm Pilot 1000 -> Philips Nino -> Handspring Visor Deluxe -> Alltel Kyocera 7135 -> Cingular Treo 650 -> AT&T Blackjack II -> AT&T Treo 750 & Epix
  15.    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by phrogpilot73 View Post
    It's always funny to me to read debates about the economy, and whose fault it is. It reminds me of this piece I read on factcheck.org, and I think the last paragraph sums it up well:
    Great article and great quote.
  16. #56  
    Back on topic, my candidate already lost in the Primaries. I too am scared of Pelosi/Reed/Obama in total control. If that happens, and Obama is smart enough to keep Congress in check then you could see it continue for all 4 years. If not, I'd expect the midterm elections will be interesting to say the least.

    It is sad, because I think both parties have moved towards the extremes. I really don't think either one represents the majority of America anymore.
    "Whenever I feel like exercise I lie down until the feeling passes."
    -Robert Maynard Hutchins


    Palm Pilot 1000 -> Philips Nino -> Handspring Visor Deluxe -> Alltel Kyocera 7135 -> Cingular Treo 650 -> AT&T Blackjack II -> AT&T Treo 750 & Epix
  17.    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by phrogpilot73 View Post
    Back on topic, my candidate already lost in the Primaries. I too am scared of Pelosi/Reed/Obama in total control. If that happens, and Obama is smart enough to keep Congress in check then you could see it continue for all 4 years. If not, I'd expect the midterm elections will be interesting to say the least.

    It is sad, because I think both parties have moved towards the extremes. I really don't think either one represents the majority of America anymore.
    Well I think Obama will lose the house and senate if he repeats the failures of Clinton and Bush in this regard (Bush held them two years longer due to 9/11 and Iraq). I'm betting that he won't do that.

    I also agree that both parties have moved to their extremes. But I believe Obama - the third most liberal US Senator - has moved to the middle somewhat in order to pick up more votes. Whether he'll continue this trend in the White House will be the difference in him being a exceptional President vs. just another partisan hack. I again think he shares the same intellectual curiousity that Clinton did and that he'll move quickly to heal the nation and the divisivness. Don't get me wrong, there will be plenty of screaming from the right about his policies and he will stumble - but I'm hopeful he'll be more moderate than Bush and his own record.

    McCain just hasn't done enough to convince me that divisivness and partisanship won't continue to be a centerpiece of his (as it was in Bush's) administration. Coupled with Palin as his VP pick and the manner in which he has conducted his campaign, it is clear to me that he won't be a maverick at all, but rather yet another lightening rod...with a hot temper to boot.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Legislation didn't set out to turn poor people into homeowners. The market, with a governmental attitude that regulation was bad, did. If you're advocating that the government should have regulated more effectively in order to ensure that this crisis didn't happen, many would agree with you - But it's ironic that this goes entirely against the philosophy of the "party of small government".
    Exactly. This is a trend created by the finance markets, the lending institutions and the culture as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The Republican Party, if it is to survive, needs to entirely get back to its libertarian roots, jettison its obsession with faith-based governance and involving itself in people's bedrooms, and truly get back to believing "those govern best who govern least".
    It is a misconception that the Republican party had libertarian roots or even a libertarian core. Just a sit is a misconception that it is the party of fiscal responsibility. Neither party is.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    It is a misconception that the Republican party had libertarian roots or even a libertarian core. Just as it is a misconception that it is the party of fiscal responsibility. Neither party is.
    Well, I don't necessarily disagree. But in the Reagan era, there was MUCH less emphasis on the religious / social ideology and more about "small government" (in name if not in practice). The faith-based governance is at the root of thier problem, IMO.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    You seem to have a general understanding of the terms and the concepts -- but what you lack is an genuine understanding of how the system worked, what forces were behind the hunger for these "safe" incredibly lucrative and profitable securities.

    You are missing the causality connection. The impetus was from the demand for supply by the companies packaging these securitized mortgages -- securites that were given investment grade rating in large part because of ficticious "insurance".

    Insurance that was itself leveraged unimaginably.

    All this happened because of "regulators" who philosophically thought that capitalism should only be guided by the greedy and the powerful.
    I'm familiar with the narrative that investment bankers drove the growth of the housing market by creating a secondary market for mortgage-backed securities. But that's nonsense. It's like if I manufacture illegal drugs, and then blame my customers, the drug dealers, for buying up everything I can make.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions