In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
Miller vouching for Daneliuk. Imagine my surprise. I wonder if Tim
asked for that endorsement.

No.

I doubt that Tim is aware of Miller's
track record as a 'debater' and what he's just hooked his wagon onto.

Actually, I suspect that a good measure of Doug's 'Tim Support' was promoted
by his dislike for me.

It was prompted by my dislike for seeing an honest man accused of lying.

I really don't know why anyone would dislike me, but

Let's see... you're vulgar, ill-mannered, and can't debate with anyone who
disagrees with you without resorting to vicious personal attacks. Naaaah, that
couldn't have anything to do with it.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Actually, you did.

You wrote, quote, Certainly another lie on your part, end quote.

You're right, I did say it, but it was mitigated in the same comment, next
paragraph. Take the time to read a bit.

More personal attacks...

Why not, you're an easy target and according to Tim, I'm evil and lazy for
letting the Canadian government do all my stealing for me. I guess it just
comes naturally.

It's sad that you are unable to debate the issue on its merits, and have
only
personal attacks to fall back on.

How else am I going to have any fun? You wouldn't take that away from me
would you Doug?

I'll go out on a limb here, and predict that your response to this will be
even more personal attacks. Any takers?

Sure, I'll bet you $5 that I'll make many more personal attacks. Any takers?

On Nov 6, 6:21*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
...I think I will take LRod's advice and shut-the-**** up. G

smirk

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Mmmmmmmmppffffmmmmmmpphhh!!!!

(btw...what are the difficulties the Dems are having with that
turncoat Lieberman?)

Tim Daneliuk writes:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:41:11 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".
"Should" would be the operative word there Chris. The problem is that's
exactly what they did do. Then Congress stepped in and decried that those
mean bankers couldn't do that. They had to issue mortgages to people with
no means to pay.

That tale is going to live longer than Iraqi WMD did, even though it's
been repeatedly debunked.

The law you're referencing prevented banks et al from "redlining",
refusing to make loans to people based on their zip code. The banks were
allowed to refuse any loan that did not meet "sound banking practices".



So your (and all the other libs) position is this: Banks are run by
such incompetent fools that they willingly, without duress, wrote
loans for people whose sole income was welfare or the equivalent.

Strawman much? I believe that greed was sufficient motivation for
brokers and bankers to make iffy loans. Add the unregulated financial
vehicles such as collateralized debt obligations where the shakey loans
were packaged and resold as insurance (and the demand for CDO's from
the rich feed right back into a feedback loop).


It's absurd on its face. No bank would do this unless they were forced
to or had an iron clad guarantee that they'd be made whole if the loan
went bad.

You really don't know much, do you?

I guess I should, as suggested, treat you as B.A.D. was.

If you really think you're smarter than the majority of Americans
who disagree with pretty much every position you take you've another
think coming.

I respect immigrants such as yourself, however you must also respect
your new fellow citizens, even if you don't necessarily agree with them.

scott

(Doug Miller) writes:
In article , Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
[snip]
they do. I know this because of the out-of-band emails I get, thanking
me for saying what I do and standing up to schoolyard bullies like you.

Certainly another lie on your part. You keep making similar claims that are

Here is a quote from tonight's private mail. The author will be happy to
confirm its authenticity:

"Upscale will now call you a liar, claiming that you never receive any
such emails. So I'm giving you proof right he Thank you for saying
what you do, and standing up to those [like him] who don't have the
stones to do their stealing themselves. I agree with your viewpoints
pretty nearly 100%, but generally refrain from participating in these
threads once you have joined in because you make the same points I
would, but more articulately and thoroughly than I have the patience
to do. I do not jump in to defend you from attacks because it seems to
me that you are more than capable of defending yourself, without my
help -- but if you want it, you need only ask. You have my permission
to publish this entire message, or portions of it, in any way you see
fit. And if -- as I expect -- you are accused of fabricating it, I
shall confirm its authenticity."

What the heck. I'm not even going to wait for someone to publicly accuse Tim
of fabricating that before I confirm it to be an exact copy-and-paste of an
email I sent him shortly after reading his post.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. You're so far from the mainstream that
you and Tim sharing opinions in common is expected. Just because
Tim can point to one other right-wing nut that believes some of the same stupid
**** he does, means absolutely zero in the real America, which pretty much
roundly rejected you and yours on tuesday.

scott

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:43:36 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

I really don't know why anyone would dislike me, but

Let's see... you're vulgar, ill-mannered, and can't debate with anyone who
disagrees with you without resorting to vicious personal attacks. Naaaah, that
couldn't have anything to do with it.

I'm having trouble with my Outlook so I've switched to Agent:

Most reading my comment above would see it as humorous which is what
it was intended to be. Guess you seem to be devoid of it Doug. Not
really surprising.

It also seems like you're just as capable of personal attacks as
anyone. Perhaps as well as adding my name to the filter program you
hand out, you should be adding your own.

Anyway if you want to play moderator by using your personal dislike of
me to moderate my messages for the rest of the readers here, then you
go ahead. It demonstrates a complete lack of ethics and integrity, but
coming from you, that's not surprising at all.

The people who know me will contact me when they want to and that you
can't stop despite any attempted moderation on your part.

You have a good day now Doug.

In article , wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:43:36 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

I really don't know why anyone would dislike me, but

Let's see... you're vulgar, ill-mannered, and can't debate with anyone who
disagrees with you without resorting to vicious personal attacks. Naaaah, that
couldn't have anything to do with it.

I'm having trouble with my Outlook so I've switched to Agent:

Most reading my comment above would see it as humorous which is what
it was intended to be. Guess you seem to be devoid of it Doug.

Having a sarcasm-impaired day, are you?

Not
really surprising.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

It also seems like you're just as capable of personal attacks as
anyone. Perhaps as well as adding my name to the filter program you
hand out, you should be adding your own.

Apparently, you consider it a personal attack when someone points out the
truth about you.

If you don't wish to be considered vulgar, ill-mannered, and incapable of
debate without resorting to personal abuse, then you shouldn't call people
things like "asshole" and "lying piece of decrepit ****" when they disagree
with you.

Anyway if you want to play moderator by using your personal dislike of
me to moderate my messages for the rest of the readers here, then you
go ahead. It demonstrates a complete lack of ethics and integrity, but
coming from you, that's not surprising at all.

Speaking of being devoid of a sense of humor... Lighten up, huh?

The people who know me will contact me when they want to and that you
can't stop despite any attempted moderation on your part.

You need more fiber in your diet. Try oatmeal.

You have a good day now Doug.

Thanks. Same to you.

In article , wrote:

This shouldn't surprise anyone. You're so far from the mainstream that
you and Tim sharing opinions in common is expected. Just because
Tim can point to one other right-wing nut that believes some of the same stupid
**** he does, means absolutely zero in the real America, which pretty much
roundly rejected you and yours on tuesday.

Not at all. I can't speak for Tim, but *my* views were not rejected on
Tuesday: there was no candidate on the ballot who represented them.

On Nov 6, 8:18*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
, but *my* views were not rejected on
Tuesday: there was no candidate on the ballot who represented them.

My you'd have better luck if you moved to North Korea?

Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:41:11 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".
"Should" would be the operative word there Chris. The problem is that's
exactly what they did do. Then Congress stepped in and decried that those
mean bankers couldn't do that. They had to issue mortgages to people with
no means to pay.
That tale is going to live longer than Iraqi WMD did, even though it's
been repeatedly debunked.

The law you're referencing prevented banks et al from "redlining",
refusing to make loans to people based on their zip code. The banks were
allowed to refuse any loan that did not meet "sound banking practices".


So your (and all the other libs) position is this: Banks are run by
such incompetent fools that they willingly, without duress, wrote
loans for people whose sole income was welfare or the equivalent.

Strawman much? I believe that greed was sufficient motivation for
brokers and bankers to make iffy loans. Add the unregulated financial
vehicles such as collateralized debt obligations where the shakey loans
were packaged and resold as insurance (and the demand for CDO's from
the rich feed right back into a feedback loop).

There is no question that the banks acted badly. But they did so
with both pressure from the government and the assurance that such
very risky loans would be covered by the government in the future.


It's absurd on its face. No bank would do this unless they were forced
to or had an iron clad guarantee that they'd be made whole if the loan
went bad.

You really don't know much, do you?

I know that bankers - however greedy - do not knowingly sign up
to lose money. They have to have some belief they will make
money and/or made whole. This idea that the banks engineered
the economic conditions today is silly. It was caused by
primarily by the deficit spending of the US government and
all that followed it. The banks were just the last one
holding the hot potato and ended up being the proximate bad
guys. Were their actions stupid? Sure, in some cases.
But even perfect behavior by the banks would not have remotely
prevented the current mess. The fundamentals go way deeper
than some Wall St. exec making "too much money" or "taking too
much risk."


I guess I should, as suggested, treat you as B.A.D. was.

It's interesting. I've been careful for the most part to avoid
personal attacks upon anyone who has debated me here (with one
exception of the individual who insists on swearing and making
every debate about the individual). I have been unrepentantly
vigorous in attacking *ideas* that I think are wrong. I've done
so in threads that I never started, and were well underway when
I joined to a large degree. The response? "Let's put our fingers
in our ears because we can neither argue an opposing position
coherently, nor get him to concede we're right." It's the mark
of an intellectually frail argument.


If you really think you're smarter than the majority of Americans
who disagree with pretty much every position you take you've another
think coming.

You are anointing yourself representative of a whole lot of that
American population that does NOT agree with you and - more to
the point - does agree with some or most of what I hold: That
individual responsibility comes with individual freedom. That
using government force to move wealth from one person to another
is morally wrong, and so forth. Take a good look at Tuesday election
results for some sense of how tenuous your "majority" really.
American doesn't have a lot of distinct majorities. It has a lot
of pluralism - many small islands of ideation joined by people of
common culture, politics, experiences, and aspirations. Most of
the first generation immigrant class, young and old, I've met
fully agree with me. So do a good many people here for much longer.
The "majority" you claim to see it your way, simply does not exist.

I respect immigrants such as yourself, however you must also respect
your new fellow citizens, even if you don't necessarily agree with them.

scott

Consensus is hardly the hallmark of truth. My fellow citizens, new-
and old are entirely within their legal rights to vote in a
socialist/Marxist. They're similarly free to blame the banks for what
was - at its core - a failing of a huge, debt ridden central
government spending its way to death. While both actions on these
citizens' part are *legal*, it doesn't make them wise or right. It
will not be people like me that will find Obama's policies (if he
actually enacts his promises) an abomination - we already know where
these lead. It will be the hyperventilating Obama groupies that
elected him that will be tremendously disappointed as the seeds he
plants lead to the inevitable fruit that is borne: A loss of liberty,
an infection that harms innovation and growth, and a further
diminishing of America's stature and place in the world.

I do not, for the record, think I am smarter than everyone else, I've
just seen parts of the movie the US citizenry signed up to watch. It
ends very badly.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Actually, you did.

You wrote, quote, Certainly another lie on your part, end quote.

You're right, I did say it, but it was mitigated in the same comment, next
paragraph. Take the time to read a bit.

More personal attacks...

Why not, you're an easy target and according to Tim, I'm evil and lazy for
letting the Canadian government do all my stealing for me. I guess it just
comes naturally.

You are not evil for taking what you are forced to pay for. You
exhibit evil for defending that system based on theft. Big difference.
I do not believe should not avail yourself of what comes out of your
and your fellow citizens' wallets. But to constantly defend a system
built on stealing is immoral. Even small children are taught that
stealing is wrong.

Unlike you, I have no particular opinion about you personally as a
debating partner, other than the fact that you've demonstrated a deep
willingness for cheap personal assault whenever you are cornered
logically. You may well be the salt of the earth as a human being
otherwise, I dunno. But you embrace truly awful and very dangerous
ideas in the face of the evidence presented the last 100 years or so
about what the inevitable end game of central government control of
wealth does. At the very least, this calls both your judgment and
morality into question.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Scott Lurndal wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:
In article , Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
[snip]
they do. I know this because of the out-of-band emails I get, thanking
me for saying what I do and standing up to schoolyard bullies like you.
Certainly another lie on your part. You keep making similar claims that are
Here is a quote from tonight's private mail. The author will be happy to
confirm its authenticity:

"Upscale will now call you a liar, claiming that you never receive any
such emails. So I'm giving you proof right he Thank you for saying
what you do, and standing up to those [like him] who don't have the
stones to do their stealing themselves. I agree with your viewpoints
pretty nearly 100%, but generally refrain from participating in these
threads once you have joined in because you make the same points I
would, but more articulately and thoroughly than I have the patience
to do. I do not jump in to defend you from attacks because it seems to
me that you are more than capable of defending yourself, without my
help -- but if you want it, you need only ask. You have my permission
to publish this entire message, or portions of it, in any way you see
fit. And if -- as I expect -- you are accused of fabricating it, I
shall confirm its authenticity."
What the heck. I'm not even going to wait for someone to publicly accuse Tim
of fabricating that before I confirm it to be an exact copy-and-paste of an
email I sent him shortly after reading his post.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. You're so far from the mainstream that
you and Tim sharing opinions in common is expected. Just because
Tim can point to one other right-wing nut that believes some of the same stupid
**** he does, means absolutely zero in the real America, which pretty much
roundly rejected you and yours on tuesday.

scott

Scott -

You may call me many things - Upscale has covered the Junior High vocabulary
in that regard. But please do not call me right-wing. I am no such thing.
I am very far away from the right on a good many issues. Both the right-
and left as expressed in Western politics are deeply flawed and are designed
to preserve power for the few over the many. I adhere to the founding
ideas of this nation first expressed by Locke and later Jefferson, Adams
(both of them), Madison, Franklin, Paine, et al. They - the whole lot of
them - would be disgusted with both the left and right as they exist today.
Upscale's juvenile cursing is irrelvant. Calling me right wing is just
plain mean.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:18 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
, but *my* views were not rejected on
Tuesday: there was no candidate on the ballot who represented them.

My you'd have better luck if you moved to North Korea?

NOW I know where I've seen you before. You're the dude with the
Elvis hairpiece and platform shoes that runs N. Korea, right?


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:

This shouldn't surprise anyone. You're so far from the mainstream that
you and Tim sharing opinions in common is expected. Just because
Tim can point to one other right-wing nut that believes some of the same stupid
**** he does, means absolutely zero in the real America, which pretty much
roundly rejected you and yours on tuesday.

Not at all. I can't speak for Tim, but *my* views were not rejected on
Tuesday: there was no candidate on the ballot who represented them.

+1

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
If you don't wish to be considered vulgar, ill-mannered, and incapable of
debate without resorting to personal abuse, then you shouldn't call people
things like "asshole" and "lying piece of decrepit ****" when they
disagree
with you.

I don't really care if someone considers me vulgar or ill-mannered Doug. In
the midst of a perfectly cordial discussion about public health care, Tim
initiated the name calling by labelling me as evil and a thief for using it.
I took Tim's comments (and still do) as an assault on my integrity. As a
proud Canadian, I also took his comments as derogatory insults against my
country. You and many others seem to think that the USA is the only country
with patriots, which is a very self-centred point of view. Anyway, I
responded in kind and as I saw fit. Whether the names used are vulgar and
insulting or run of the mill insults, it adds up to the same thing as far as
I'm concerned.

If Tim (or you) can't deal with the name calling, whatever it's form, then
he shouldn't be tossing out insults in the first place without expecting a
response. Especially so, since he doesn't know me personally and has never
previously had any dealings with me.

Tim is exactly what I've said he is. It seems I'm not the only one who
thinks so.

There, are you happy now? I haven't used one vulgar word.

Upscale wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
If you don't wish to be considered vulgar, ill-mannered, and incapable of
debate without resorting to personal abuse, then you shouldn't call people
things like "asshole" and "lying piece of decrepit ****" when they
disagree
with you.

I don't really care if someone considers me vulgar or ill-mannered Doug. In
the midst of a perfectly cordial discussion about public health care, Tim
initiated the name calling by labelling me as evil and a thief for using it.
I took Tim's comments (and still do) as an assault on my integrity. As a
proud Canadian, I also took his comments as derogatory insults against my
country. You and many others seem to think that the USA is the only country
with patriots, which is a very self-centred point of view. Anyway, I
responded in kind and as I saw fit. Whether the names used are vulgar and
insulting or run of the mill insults, it adds up to the same thing as far as
I'm concerned.

You're not a thief for taking what you already paid for. You're dishonest
for supporting the thievery as a virtue and promoting it prospectively
for the future. Stealing is evil. Defending it is similarly evil.
This is not name calling, it is definitional ... unless you decide to
explain how stealing is suddenly not a moral foul.


If Tim (or you) can't deal with the name calling, whatever it's form, then
he shouldn't be tossing out insults in the first place without expecting a
response. Especially so, since he doesn't know me personally and has never
previously had any dealings with me.

I know you promote theft as a virtue.


Tim is exactly what I've said he is. It seems I'm not the only one who
thinks so.

There, are you happy now? I haven't used one vulgar word.

You must be exhausted.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
If you don't wish to be considered vulgar, ill-mannered, and incapable of
debate without resorting to personal abuse, then you shouldn't call people
things like "asshole" and "lying piece of decrepit ****" when they
disagree
with you.

I don't really care if someone considers me vulgar or ill-mannered Doug. In
the midst of a perfectly cordial discussion about public health care, Tim
initiated the name calling by labelling me as evil and a thief for using it.

Not true; he has explicitly stated that his complaint is not with your *using*
that system, but with your *advocating* it.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:UIVQk.4970
initiated the name calling by labelling me as evil and a thief for using
it.

Not true; he has explicitly stated that his complaint is not with your
*using*
that system, but with your *advocating* it.

He does now, but earlier message distinctly label me evil and a thief. In
fact he said it a number of times. Anyway, I *DO* advocate the system, so
according to Tim and his screwed up selfish ways, I am evil and a thief.

And what does it have to do with you? Are you suddenly Tims ardent
supporter? It seems you do have your nose up his butt. This too, is not a
great surprise.

Upscale wrote:

Tim is exactly what I've said he is. It seems I'm not the only one who
thinks so.

What you say stands alone. Doesn't matter who agrees with you or
doesn't agree with you, or Tim. Everyone that reads this stuff is smart
enough to read, so should be smart enough to figure out which one of you
is an empty bag of air, and who speaks with substance and reason.

If everyone except you agreed with Tim 100%, it would not change the
veracity of (or lack thereof) your statements one iota!

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
veracity of (or lack thereof) your statements one iota!

Doesn't much matter at this point anyway since the "discussion" is winding
down. I've filtered Tim's name so he can attempt to troll a reply from me
all he wants, I won't see it.

Of course, he may have enlisted Doug to assist him, but I believe Doug is
considerably smarter than that.

On Nov 8, 9:18*am, "Upscale" wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
veracity of (or lack thereof) your statements one iota!

Doesn't much matter at this point anyway since the "discussion" is winding
down. I've filtered Tim's name so he can attempt to troll a reply from me
all he wants, I won't see it.

Of course, he may have enlisted Doug to assist him,

but I believe Doug is
considerably smarter than that.

Uhh, no.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
Uhh, no.

Guess I'll find out. In any event, Doug has contributed considerable
woodworking knowledge to this group, whereas Tim has contribute zip or very
close to it.

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
veracity of (or lack thereof) your statements one iota!

Doesn't much matter at this point anyway since the "discussion" is winding
down. I've filtered Tim's name so he can attempt to troll a reply from me
all he wants, I won't see it.

Of course, he may have enlisted Doug to assist him, but I believe Doug is
considerably smarter than that.

I think I already said that he has not asked.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:41:11 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".

"Should" would be the operative word there Chris. The problem is that's
exactly what they did do. Then Congress stepped in and decried that
those
mean bankers couldn't do that. They had to issue mortgages to people
with no means to pay.

That tale is going to live longer than Iraqi WMD did, even though it's
been repeatedly debunked.

The law you're referencing prevented banks et al from "redlining",
refusing to make loans to people based on their zip code. The banks were
allowed to refuse any loan that did not meet "sound banking practices".

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but just to provide some de-bunking for
the so-called de-bunking mentioned above, just ran across the following:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

Note the date, this is from 2000, after Clinton had signed into law more
teeth for the CRA and is remarkably prescient regarding what was going to
happen when banks were *forced* to make loans to people they knew would not
be able to pay it back.

Reader's Digest Version:
1) The update to the CRA *did* force banks to make loans to people who they
knew would not be able to pay them back. The penalty would be inability to
merge with other banks, open other branches, and have their CRA rating
degraded. This act was using the force of law to coerce banks into making
loans that they otherwise would not have made.
2) The update to the CRA empowered local activist organizations (like ACORN)
to bully banks into making such loans
3) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a role in defining borrower
requirements
4) The end result predicted (in 2000) was a high rate of loan defaults when
economic conditions declined.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:06:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Reader's Digest Version:
1) The update to the CRA *did* force banks to make loans to people who they
knew would not be able to pay them back. The penalty would be inability to
merge with other banks, open other branches, and have their CRA rating
degraded. This act was using the force of law to coerce banks into making
loans that they otherwise would not have made.

The URL you gave got me a 404. I even went to the home page and tried
their search - no joy. But if what you quote and they said is true, then
that's certainly part of the cause - I stand corrected.

But the lack of regulation for those exotic derivatives also bears much of
the blame. Gramm had a lot to do with that. And don't forget that up to
30% of the mortgages in default are from "flippers" who got low or no down
loans and simply walked away when they got underwater.

I suspect economists will be arguing for some times about the various
reasons for the meltdown and which of them bears what percent of the blame.

I did do a google on the CRA and read a few of the articles. One which
I'd like to call to your attention is:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100022

Here's a couple of quotes:

"A study released earlier this year by a law firm specializing in CRA
compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3
percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not
governed by the CRA."

"More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage
companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30
percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts,
which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the
remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts."

Obviously neither you or I have the time to fully investigate either your
references or mine. At some point we have to estimate the weight of the
testimonies and the credibility of the testifiers. So far the weight
and credibility seems to me to be on the side of those who claim greed and
lack of regulation were the primary culprits.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:06:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Reader's Digest Version:
1) The update to the CRA *did* force banks to make loans to people who
they
knew would not be able to pay them back. The penalty would be inability
to merge with other banks, open other branches, and have their CRA rating
degraded. This act was using the force of law to coerce banks into making
loans that they otherwise would not have made.

The URL you gave got me a 404. I even went to the home page and tried
their search - no joy. But if what you quote and they said is true, then
that's certainly part of the cause - I stand corrected.


I just tried it again, it worked:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

But the lack of regulation for those exotic derivatives also bears much of
the blame. Gramm had a lot to do with that. And don't forget that up to
30% of the mortgages in default are from "flippers" who got low or no down
loans and simply walked away when they got underwater.


Certainly agree that the "flippers" were partly to blame. They were also
taking advantage of the low and no-down terms.


I suspect economists will be arguing for some times about the various
reasons for the meltdown and which of them bears what percent of the
blame.

I did do a google on the CRA and read a few of the articles. One which
I'd like to call to your attention is:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100022


I will point out that mediamatters.org is not by any stretch of the
imagination a non-partisan organization being heavily funded by George
Soros.


Here's a couple of quotes:

"A study released earlier this year by a law firm specializing in CRA
compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3
percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not
governed by the CRA."


That may be the case, but were they using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as
their supporting backup?


"More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage
companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30
percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts,
which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the
remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts."


Does Countrywide fall into that category? If so, then they were certainly
part of the Fannie Mae fiasco. They were making the loans, then bundling
them and selling them as F Mae/F Mac backed.


Obviously neither you or I have the time to fully investigate either your
references or mine. At some point we have to estimate the weight of the
testimonies and the credibility of the testifiers. So far the weight
and credibility seems to me to be on the side of those who claim greed and
lack of regulation were the primary culprits.

From what I've read, the motivation and increasingly loose lending
standards set by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a significant contributor
to the problem. As far as lack of regulation, back as far as 2003 and again
in 2005, the administration attempted to sponsor legislation calling for
tighter regulation of F. Mae and F Mac. The administration was
resoundingly rebuffed by members of congress (Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer,
Chuck Dodd) who all loudly proclaimed that those two institutions were
sound and in no way in trouble, then accused the administration of racism
and being mean to the poor, a charge that was amplified by the media such
that the administration dropped the plans for the legislation. Should the
administration have pushed harder? Probably so, but after daily
accusations of being evil only second to the devil himself, it's not
surprising that the administration picked its battles.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

As far as lack of regulation, back as far as 2003 and again
in 2005, the administration attempted to sponsor legislation
calling for tighter regulation of F. Mae and F Mac.
The administration was resoundingly rebuffed by members
of congress (Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Chuck Dodd)


All of whom were in bed with (one literally) both companies.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:43:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:


I just tried it again, it worked:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

OK, it worked for me after taking off the "http://" - I guess Firefox is a
little fussy :-).


http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100022


I will point out that mediamatters.org is not by any stretch of the
imagination a non-partisan organization being heavily funded by George
Soros.

And the Manhattan Institute is not exactly non-partisan either :-).


From what I've read, the motivation and increasingly loose lending
standards set by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a significant contributor
to the problem.

Phil Gramm inserted an amendment forbidding regulation of those strange
derivatives. You don't think that had anything to do with it?

As I said, we'll just have to pick the "expert" we believe.

I've had my say and so have you. Neither of us has changed the others
opinion. As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of it unless you can
come up with a refutation of the statistics I quoted.