1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Bush started the Mortgage mess. proof

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by pizzaman, Oct 1, 2008.

  1. pizzaman

    pizzaman Active Member

    Messages:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    52
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #81
    pizzaman, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  2. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #82
    But like I said, this is only blaming the demand side and not the supply side.
    Do we say that only the users/addicts of a particular drug are responsible for the problem and not the dealers?
    What about all the securitization madness. What about the CDSs that allowed people to make bets on other people defaulting, which had a lot to do with AIG crumbling. What about all the crazy leveraging that was allowed to take place. I mean what we're going through now, Warren Buffet described as a massive deleveraging. What about Greenspan's role in keeping interest rates near an all time low while suggesting that more people take out adjustable rate mortagages, followed by him then hiking rates? Or Bushs' insistence on new home ownership? What about a million other more complicated things that I and most people probably wouldn't even understand?

    The point is that Freddie and Fannie is being used by the republicans because it's an easy attack strategy. They can show how the democrats protected it, so as long as they can convince people that Fannie and Freddie is responsible then that means the responsibility of the whole mess lies solely with the democrats. But it's just not that simple. The whole financial sector was being run like that saloon in Unforgiven where the hooker got her face cut up, like the wild west.
     
    LogicFlux, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  3. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #83
    The problem is that I don't think there was an iceberg. In this case it's the way the ocean liner industry was run that caused the sinking. Making Fannie and Freddie the ice berg is easy way to frame an argument in order to place blame. And it's being done purely for political reasons, because of the election.
     
    LogicFlux, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  4. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #84
    Again, an analogy is imperfect.

    • The problems on Wall Street are largely a result of assets that include bundled securities tainted with bad loans. Goes back to Fannie/Freddie lowering their lending standards and engaging in high risk lending.
    • The problems on main street go back to a weak housing industry (a driving force in the economy) plagued by mortgage defaults... resulting in decreasing values and more defaults. Goes back to Fannie/Freddie lowering their lending standards and engaging in high risk lending.

    Even todays NY Times article begins "Pressured to take more risk, Fannie reached a tipping point." . Fixing to read that one right now.
     
    robjones, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  5. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #85
    Yep I see how it's mostly democrats from this link you provided.

    :rolleyes:

    The link you provided has McCain not even voting, yep he sure was part of the solution according to that link. The link also has a pretty good mix on both sides both supporting and not supporting.

    Would think that equates to both sides being to blame.

    Ahh yes, and even in this article it sure appears both sides played a part.

     
    GRIM, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  6. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #86
    LOL. Well, Grim, I could continue to repeat that in the dozen or so posts on the topic I have also ascribed some blame on both sides. Naah, already tried explaining that.

    If you're curious, in the Civil War there were union loyalists present in each of the southern states. There were southern sympathizers in northern states. Usually works like that. Still we tend to say the southern states supported states rights or slavery or whatever motive we consider the root, and the northern states opposed it, though it describes the general populace and not every individual.

    If it makes you feel better to think I can't see fault in any Republican or good in any Democrat, knock yourself out. Didn't wake up this morning with a burning desire to teach pigs to sing, or to teach Grim mortgage history. If I have to pick one or the other I'm going with the pigs... but then I'm a pragmatist.
     
    robjones, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  7. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #87
    Some blame as you've put it is a way around the fact that Republicans were in bed with the situation as well, you still are far and large trying to blame only one side for much of what has happened.

    http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20020624_bushplan.htm

    I don't dispute that the Dems had a hand in it, I however dispute the notion that most of the blame 'besides a few wayward Republicans' lies at the Dems feet.

    I dispute flat out lies such as 'Democratic controlled congress' shot down attempts, which would be hard to do when the DNC did NOT control congress.

    :rolleyes:
     
    GRIM, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  8. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #88
    I've told no "flat out lies." I did however ascribe that ONE attempt incorrectly as it fell between periods, and I've corrected that now, what, 3 times? It doesnt even moderately disprove my argument to admit that.

    But thanks for once again simply supporting your point (if there is one) with the liar liar pants on fire argument. If I read your posts as a whole it appears the point is that I'm a lying prick... and you're of course entitled to your opinion regardless of merit. Loved your trolling, but gotta run... got a pig over here warming up for a tenor solo.
     
    robjones, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  9. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #89
    Actually it became a flat out lie when you chose to instead of admit to a mistake, turn it around to attack me claiming partisan.
    Trolling?
    Yeah like you who started the claiming I am an Obama supporter when I simply dispute items you claim. I have given more than 'liar liar' but sure, keep your eyes closed. Believe I even posted a link above.

    :rolleyes:
     
    GRIM, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  10. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #90
    Not sure how many times I've now clarified the single error of fact amongst the volumes I've written, but if you really want to divert this thread just to repeatedly call me a liar for something I've corrected multiple times I can only suggest you should probably open a separate thread to address my terrible dishonesty.

    Anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity would've ceased this by now, but I see that doesnt apply to you.
     
    robjones, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  11. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #91
    :rolleyes:

    Ahh yes your continued lame ass attack of 'intellectual integrity'

    Look back through this thread to see where you decided to attack me on items that did not even exist, all from the basis of the lie you originally told. The lie you could of easily of manned up and stated you were wrong, but instead decided to go on a rambling post against me, all for simply calling you on something you claimed was a fact.

    The entire basis of your argument against me draws from this simple item you now claim well after the fact to be mispoken.

    Talk about 'intellectual dishonesty' I guess that's what is said above your image in the mirror hey?


    Where you lie/misspeak.

    I bring up that it's not a 'fact' I do not show partisanship or anything of the sort, in fact I have gone against those claiming it's Bush's fault in this very thread. But here comes total 'intellectual dishonesty' instead of being a man and saying 'oh you know what, I fucked up' you come back with the following.

    You completely bypass the entire point I brought up, something you stated as a fact was not a fact. You then decided to twist it and claim I am partisan, yet I'm one who blames both sides. You continue to rail on that 'one side or the other bears the brunt of the blame.' and then claim it annoys me, what annoyed me was that you stated something that was NOT a fact. Pretty simple.

    Again I blame both sides, not too difficult to follow.

    More rips on me, trying to stroke your own intelligence, all the while still bypassing the simple point I originally brought up that the 'fact' you claimed was NOT a fact.

    By now it has turned into a flat out lie as you still do not admit it was wrong and still are continuing to turn it into something else, of which I tell you outright.
    Still you don't admit it was incorrect, instead something else might have been a 'proper way of phrasing it'

    Do you get it now? The entire reason we are even arguing here is because of the 'fact' that was not a fact. The 'fact' that you decided instead of being a man would go to 'intellectual integrity' of the extreme and claim things that did not exist all the while to cover your lie/mistake.
     
    GRIM, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  12. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #92
    I'd point to why the entire thesis isnt dependent on that one statement, but it's quicker to ignore you for throwing feces instead of discussing the topic. Trolls go on ignore so I can discuss things with the big kids.
     
    robjones, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  13. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #93
    :rolleyes:

    Considering you have ignored every link I have brought up and the disputes in your own link of 'votes' above, yeah I'd say you should practice what you preach. To bad VB does not allow one to put themselves on ignore.
     
    GRIM, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  14. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #94
    Who was President in 1999?

    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.

    Published: September 30, 1999

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...erence/Times Topics/Subjects/M/Minorities (US)
     
    bogart, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  15. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #95
    I guess you missed my post here?

    http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=9418773&postcount=87


    Who was president when Bush was? ;)
     
    GRIM, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  16. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #96
    bogart, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  17. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #97
    :confused:

    What does that have to do with anything?

    I am not taking blame away from Clinton and democrats, I am showing both sides are to blame. Surely you can see how Bush's own policies, the link I have provided helped cause this situation.
     
    GRIM, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  18. homebizseo

    homebizseo Peon

    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    56
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #98
    Rob you are not a liar and your post has been accurate.The Dems are more responsible for the fallout than all other parties. The republicans and even McCain knew there were problems. The Dems were trying to help everyone achieve home ownership. Their heart was right and if gas would not have increased along with all goods the bottom of the banks would not have fell out.
     
    homebizseo, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  19. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #99
    Homebiz do you bother to read anything? Or is all you're capable of is slapping other guys on the ass?
     
    GRIM, Oct 5, 2008 IP
  20. homebizseo

    homebizseo Peon

    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    56
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #100
    Rob is not a liar and his post has been accurate. You are constantly attacking and harassing most members in the P&R.

    The Dems are more responsible for the problem and even some high rankings Dems have stated this.. Clinton for instance.
     
    homebizseo, Oct 5, 2008 IP