Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 89
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Yes, you're right, I must not understand your rather broad definition of directly.



    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.



    Did Frank's opposition stop the bill from going to the floor in a Republican controlled house or not?



    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?
    You never succeed in summarizing my position because you always add a partisan spin. You seem to believe that "directly" means "solely." It doesn't. Barney Frank was directly responsible because no one stood between him and the effect of his own actions. I'm not blaming him because he's a Democrat. I'm blaming him because he screwed up in a big way.

    As for congressman as singular, you're assuming I'm claiming something which I'm not, and so you missed the point entirely.

    Re specifics, from factcheck.org:
    Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown."
    And your talk about Republicans in charge have zero to do with the question of whether Frank was directly responsible.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Legislation didn't set out to turn poor people into homeowners.
    Yes it did. The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to poor communities that otherwise did not meet the established credit criteria.
  3. #63  
    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:
    That sounds like a rational conclusion, but they don't offer facts to back up that claim - about the ability of legislation to cause or avert the crisis.

    As for Barney Frank's role, they support the claim that he spent years actively opposing oversight of the mortgage giants. It wasn't a single piece of legislation, but a big chunk of his career pushing us in the wrong direction.
  4.    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You never succeed in summarizing my position because you always add a partisan spin. You seem to believe that "directly" means "solely." It doesn't. Barney Frank was directly responsible because no one stood between him and the effect of his own actions.
    Sigh. Okay, what were his "actions" and what were the corresponding "effects"? This whole thing started because I thought that a Fox News hack made it seem as though Franks was solely to blame for Freddie Mac. But since you want to debate this, break it down for me. And please use non-partisan sources if possible.

    I'm not blaming him because he's a Democrat. I'm blaming him because he screwed up in a big way.
    Fine. I've acknowledged he is culpable. I took exception to the characterization on Fox that he is solely to blame. You've taken exception to my...err...taking exception I guess. What are we debating again?

    And your talk about Republicans in charge have zero to do with the question of whether Frank was directly responsible.
    Not really. They could have done something. If Franks were in a bus full of passengers, sitting in the back seat, chanting "faster faster faster" and the bus driver breaks the law and speeds and then wrecks, would Frank's be "directly" responsible? You see, I think the Republicans were in the driver seat and as such only they had their foot on the gas pedal. Sure, Franks was a moron for yelling "faster faster", but he can hardly be blamed for the actions of the driver when he was sitting in the back of the bus.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Yes it did. The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to poor communities that otherwise did not meet the established credit criteria.
    Teh opposite is true.The subprime housing bust is almost entirety a exurban event that has littel to nothing to do with CRA loans and criteria.

    It is the marketing of mcmansion housing in exurbia where the bulk of the defaults are occurring. Most of the bad subprime loan failures are outside of the CRA. CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loan.

    The avalanche in any case derives from Wall street greed that caused the mass marketing and buying of derivatives (ultra high leverage on high risk loans) whcih amplified this 100 fold.

    [QUOTE=samkim;1516196Barney Frank was directly responsible because no one stood between him and the effect of his own actions. I'm not blaming him because he's a Democrat. I'm blaming him because he screwed up in a big way.[/QUOTE]

    Blaming Frank is something attempted by the far right. One can easily find similar scapegoating of Republican members, Republican legislative action and the President and his people.

    The Subprime mortgage crisis is a worldwide event. It derives from a normal housing boom and bust. In the US exacerbated by bipartisan efforts to increase home ownership and a nonpartisan culture of using the home as an ATM for consumer spending, high corporate, consumer and government debt, overbuilding, and increased amount and degree of leveraged debt investment instruments. It has been coming for 30 years or more. To blame Frank is incredible. It is like blaming Joe the Plumber for McCain's inept campaigning.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Fine. I've acknowledged he is culpable. I took exception to the characterization on Fox that he is solely to blame. You've taken exception to my...err...taking exception I guess. What are we debating again.
    Fox has to do this because of their demographics. Everything major complex event demands a simplistic and, if they can, personality based explanation.
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Teh opposite is true.The subprime housing bust is almost entirety a exurban event that has littel to nothing to do with CRA loans and criteria.

    It is the marketing of mcmansion housing in exurbia where the bulk of the defaults are occurring. Most of the bad subprime loan failures are outside of the CRA. CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loan.
    Bujin said: "Legislation didn't set out to turn poor people into homeowners."

    I said: "Yes it did. The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to poor communities that otherwise did not meet the established credit criteria."

    Your response is not related to this point. I made no mention of a housing bust in this post. You seem to be responding to my previous post blaming the legislation and the sub-prime industry, so I'll respond as such.


    The housing bust is a product of the housing bubble, which was driven by legislation whose purpose was to increase home ownership, especially among poor people. The CRA was one part of that. So was the directive to Freddie and Fannie to increase lending to low-income borrowers. There were others.



    Most of the failures are outside the CRA? Note that Countrywide was technically outside the CRA, but they complied with CRA criteria, and they sold their mortgage securities to banks that needed CRA credits. Wachovia and WaMu were covered under CRA.

    Also note that Freddie and Fannie were not covered by CRA, but were still directed by the government to buy up mortgages from low-income borrowers.


    Blaming Frank is something attempted by the far right.
    Is that supposed to be evidence that Frank is innocent?


    The Subprime mortgage crisis is a worldwide event. It derives from a normal housing boom and bust. In the US exacerbated by bipartisan efforts to increase home ownership and a nonpartisan culture of using the home as an ATM for consumer spending, high corporate, consumer and government debt, overbuilding, and increased amount and degree of leveraged debt investment instruments. It has been coming for 30 years or more. To blame Frank is incredible. It is like blaming Joe the Plumber for McCain's inept campaigning.
    It's a worldwide event because banks across the world bought securities tied to US mortgages, not because everyone else experienced their own simultaneous sub-prime crisis.

    And you seem to imply that housing bubbles/busts are natural. I think there's nothing inevitable about a housing bubble/bust. None of the things you list necessarily lead to a bust - except for overbuilding, which is more a sign than a cause.

    And you're right that the effort to increase home ownership was a bipartisan effort. Both Clinton and Bush pushed for it. But you haven't offered a defense of Frank's actions.
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Bujin said: "Legislation didn't set out to turn poor people into homeowners."

    I said: "Yes it did. The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to poor communities that otherwise did not meet the established credit criteria."

    Your response is not related to this point. I made no mention of a housing bust in this post. You seem to be responding to my previous post blaming the legislation and the sub-prime industry, so I'll respond as such.


    The housing bust is a product of the housing bubble, which was driven by legislation whose purpose was to increase home ownership, especially among poor people. The CRA was one part of that. So was the directive to Freddie and Fannie to increase lending to low-income borrowers. There were others.



    Most of the failures are outside the CRA? Note that Countrywide was technically outside the CRA, but they complied with CRA criteria, and they sold their mortgage securities to banks that needed CRA credits. Wachovia and WaMu were covered under CRA.

    Also note that Freddie and Fannie were not covered by CRA, but were still directed by the government to buy up mortgages from low-income borrowers.


    Is that supposed to be evidence that Frank is innocent?


    It's a worldwide event because banks across the world bought securities tied to US mortgages, not because everyone else experienced their own simultaneous sub-prime crisis.

    And you seem to imply that housing bubbles/busts are natural. I think there's nothing inevitable about a housing bubble/bust. None of the things you list necessarily lead to a bust - except for overbuilding, which is more a sign than a cause.

    And you're right that the effort to increase home ownership was a bipartisan effort. Both Clinton and Bush pushed for it. But you haven't offered a defense of Frank's actions.

    I'm not able to further add much to what I've written previously right now -- but you and all the others who are so eager to accept this bull about those poor borrowers being to blame, need to reflect upon their own gullibility.

    That view is so FAR from the way the world actually works.

    (I apologize for my harshness, but this subject REALLY rankles me.)

    Demand is almost always infinite (as in the case of borrowers or drug users). Supply is what varies -- as does the willingness, interest, and competitiveness of the pushers and or bankers.
    ,
    To not understand that fundamental law of the world makes it almost impossible for me take seriously anyone who argues otherwise.

    Control, price, supply etc. are almost ALWAYS CONTROLED by the bankers and pushers.

    The Fed -- in their infinite wisdom -- finally lowered interest rates to 1% today (more than a year after it could have made any difference, btw.)

    Suppose I want to buy a house. My credit is sterling. Banks won't lend me money for anything less than 6.75%. No matter how much I beg and plead -- no matter how low the Fed rate.

    Lenders decide for themselves how much to lend, at what rate, and to whom.

    To not understand that -- to blame some incentive program that affected a tiny tiny few -- is delusional.
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/30/2008 at 03:32 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    I'm not able to further add much to what I've written previously right now -- but you and all the others who are so eager to accept this bull about those poor borrowers being to blame, need to reflect upon their own gullibility.
    Poor borrowers being to blame? You responded to my post, but you seem to be addressing someone else entirely.


    To not understand that -- to blame some incentive program that affected a tiny tiny few -- is delusional.
    I don't know what you could possibly be talking about. Did a community bank in your neighborhood have a loan promotion?
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Poor borrowers being to blame? You responded to my post, but you seem to be addressing someone else entirely.


    I don't know what you could possibly be talking about. Did a community bank in your neighborhood have a loan promotion?
    did you not say: "The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to poor communities" etc. ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    did you not say: "The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to poor communities" etc. ??
    Yes. And so?
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Yes. And so?
    Maybe I'm wrong.

    Maybe BARYE, in his usual hyperbolic way, is misunderstanding, misreading what you said.

    Perhaps others can assist me to correctly interpret your post.

    You were not blaming borrowers -- you were not blaming organizations like ACORN that lobbied on behalf of a few disadvantaged neighborhoods that were being denied fair market mortgages because of a formerly rampant practice called “Red Lining”.

    In my self-reverential reverie, I saw your earlier silence in reaction to what I wrote as a scream of grudging assent -- as a reluctant acknowledgment of a principle so obvious as to be irrefutable -- yet so profound in its insight that you were simultaneously struck mute by the realization that you had not, until now, understood it.

    Please samkim -- do not be so cruel as to deny BARYE his moment of self referential reverie -- please just acknowledge his truth -- you will feel so much the better for it ...


    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE

    Demand is almost always infinite (as in the case of borrowers or drug users). Supply is what varies -- as does the willingness, interest, and competitiveness of the pushers and or bankers.

    To not understand that fundamental law of the world makes it almost impossible for me take seriously anyone who argues otherwise.

    Control, price, supply etc. are almost ALWAYS CONTROLLED by the bankers and pushers.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Yes it did. The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to poor communities that otherwise did not meet the established credit criteria.
    The CRA is not responsible for the majority of defaults. the majority are middle class suburban and exurban. The CRA did not create the Wall street leveraged debt instruments that could not be valued except through mark to market, which is what precipitated the problem.

    The CRA has almost nothing to do with the current crisis.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    The housing bust is a product of the housing bubble, which was driven by legislation whose purpose was to increase home ownership, especially among poor people. The CRA was one part of that.
    Housing to poor people was a minor fraction of the problem. The bust was in great majority middle and upper middle class defaults on over development by land developers fed by wall street seeking higher and higher returns as the Bush administration drive down interest rates.

    Lastly you seem to insist the housing bubble is local only to the US. Sorry to "burst your bubble" but that is incorrect. Housing all over Europe underwent a simultaneous bubble and burst as it did in elsewhere in the World. Kind of hard to blame Barney Frank for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    It's a worldwide event because banks across the world bought securities tied to US mortgages, not because everyone else experienced their own simultaneous sub-prime crisis.
    Actually banks in the US bought securities tied to foreign mortgages as well. So by your logic, it was caused outside the US?
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Housing to poor people was a minor fraction of the problem. The bust was in great majority middle and upper middle class defaults on over development by land developers fed by wall street seeking higher and higher returns as the Bush administration drive down interest rates.

    Lastly you seem to insist the housing bubble is local only to the US. Sorry to "burst your bubble" but that is incorrect. Housing all over Europe underwent a simultaneous bubble and burst as it did in elsewhere in the World. Kind of hard to blame Barney Frank for that.


    Actually banks in the US bought securities tied to foreign mortgages as well. So by your logic, it was caused outside the US?

    gosh aero -- everything you've said sounds suspiciously close to what I thought --- but perhaps samkim can help us both to overcome our naivite, and better understand things...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  16. #76  
    Life will continue. I take it everyone here is aware of Obama's relatives living in the Boston area - their life style being poverty level. Some light watching:
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Life will continue. I take it everyone here is aware of Obama's relatives living in the Boston area - their life style being poverty level. Some light watching:
    I'm glad you're interested in discussing the real issues.


    Do you stand by all of the claims of this video? I'm assuming that you do, since you posted the link. So I'm assuming you approve of the hateful, racist and just plain incorrect claims in this video? Posting of this link says more about you than it does about Obama.
    Last edited by Bujin; 10/31/2008 at 12:40 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  18. #78  
    Not at all, just a reminder that there is more than what the press tells us. You are claiming racist in the clip? Wow. Hateful? Wow. There may be some incorrect claims, but not that many. Is it hateful to also point out that Obama has relatives in the Boston area that he has not assisted with his own money? Obama is a millionaire, should he not spread some of his wealth around to his family? To his brother in Africa, to his...really now.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Life will continue. I take it everyone here is aware of Obama's relatives living in the Boston area - their life style being poverty level. Some light watching:
    Oh, that was SOOO funny!!!!

    I expect such BS from you.... at least it was funny.

    Sad thing is that you believe all of that...
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Not at all, just a reminder that there is more than what the press tells us. You are claiming racist in the clip? Wow. Hateful? Wow. There may be some incorrect claims, but not that many. Is it hateful to also point out that Obama has relatives in the Boston area that he has not assisted with his own money? Obama is a millionaire, should he not spread some of his wealth around to his family? To his brother in Africa, to his...really now.
    I have many relatives that I've never met - why would I share money with them? He met his father a grand total of once....I'm sure he has many relatives, including a brother, who he doesn't know. I'm surprised you want him to redistribute his wealth.

    As for my contention that the clip is racist and hateful: I absolutely and unapologetically stand by it. Among the comments in the video:

    - "I will bring the ships to Africa to bring all the blacks over, including my family's tribe", with an Obama family picture
    - "My people have already taken over Michigan as well as most of your country", accompanying a picture of Obama with bin Laden's beard and head covering, and the name "Obama bin Laden"
    - "Radical Muslim possible sleeper cell", with a picture of Obama and Osama side-by-side

    So I'm just calling it like I see it - very much filled with lies, racial slurs and hateful expressions. I'm a bit surprised that you're not ashamed to post it, but as long as you're comfortable with yourself, that's your business.
    Last edited by Bujin; 10/31/2008 at 01:58 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions