Obama Sucked Tonight

mr2shim

mr2shim

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
You have the rest of the day
Enjoy
I'm going to a soccer game, then watching some football
Click to expand...
I watched the F1 race this morning. Needless to say I'm glad I got up this morning. My man lewis is back in the fight. Gotta go for a run now.
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
bedspirit said:
beenthere and notheist,

I decided to research your side of the CRA argument. I came across the best article that supports your position on the net: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-27/wall_street/30009234_1_mortgage-standards-lending-standards-mortgage-rates

This is the only article that actually addresses all the evidence I presented. It's almost impossible to debate his reasoning because it is so slippery. The premise is that the CRA caused banks to loosen lending standards. He acknowledges that the CRA makes no such requirements of the banks and that it's likely that they didn't have to do it to be in compliance. But they did it anyway. So it's the CRA's fault based on the assumption that they wouldn't have done it without the CRA. That's fucking brilliant. It simultaneously admits unnecessary reckless behavior on the part of the banks while still blaming the CRA.

He also makes the claim that their behavior was less dictated by the actual Act itself, but by the individual regulators who have come and gone over the years. How could you argue this? I'd have to figure out who they were and what they said to the banks. It's impossible. Not only for me to know, but probably for the author himself to know.

To be clear, I think this guy is full of shit, but at least he came up with an somewhat coherent argument to counter all the shit that I've been saying. You guys should seriously read it because your arguments have resulted in some pretty epic fails.
Click to expand...
For every one article that denies it, about 30 discredit it. Expert after expert have been writing how the CRA was a stepping stone. I will link from the Cato institute a libertarian think tank. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v32n1/cpr32n1-1.html
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
lol, the sock puppet cites a libertarian think tank.

classic.

sock puppets are so fucking dumb.
Click to expand...
Well is better than fox news or Huff post.....I believe Bedspirit is a libertarian so what are you trying to get at? Do you have anything intellectual to say about the housing bubble or is all you can come up with "it's Bush's fault"?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
nontheist said:
Well is better than fox news or Huff post.....I believe Bedspirit is a libertarian so what are you trying to get at? Do you have anything intellectual to say about the housing bubble or is all you can come up with "it's Bush's fault"?
Click to expand...
blaming the administration that the housing crash happened under is sooooooo mainstream.

i was blaming democratic administrations that the housing crash didn't happen under before it was cool.

also, you have a fist up your ass.
 
bedspirit

bedspirit

Active Member
beenthere said:
You are so hell bent on being right, you've lost sight of finding the truth.

The bottom line is, the CRA put in place sanctions that threatened banks who did not comply.
Like some of the opinion editorials you read, you claim there is no teeth in these sanctions, I disagree.

A quick analogy; The federal government finally legalizes MMJ. Dispensaries are now regulated by federal government. You open up your own dispensary and business is doing well. One of the statutes requires you to sell your product on credit to patients in low income areas. If you fail to comply with this regulation you are not allowed to expand and open up other dispensaries.

No teeth huh!
Click to expand...
I agree with you. We should repeal it. Neither side likes it. The right doesn't like it because the it because they believe in freedom. Freedom for private industry to do whatever the fuck it wants.
The left doesn't like it because it doesn't force the banks to do anything. It doesn't make a low CRA score illegal and it doesn't force regulators to deny a bank the right to expand. Regulators can choose to completely ignore the CRA score without violating the legislation. It makes it very easy to corrupt the regulators. I wonder how many times a regulator ignored a low CRA score in exchange for favors.

We have established the CRA is a crappy law, but it's also irrelevant today. When it was written, Glass Steagall was still in effect and banks hadn't yet become enormous and diverse enough to boost their scores through subsidiaries. This is why it didn't have any major impact on the recession.
 
bedspirit

bedspirit

Active Member
nontheist said:
For every one article that denies it, about 30 discredit it. Expert after expert have been writing how the CRA was a stepping stone. I will link from the Cato institute a libertarian think tank. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v32n1/cpr32n1-1.html
Click to expand...
Holy Fucking Shit man! I keep suggesting that you read the links before you post them. What did you do? Read the first couple sentences and link to it? Just use the link I gave you. It supports your argument far better than this article does. This one assumes we know that the CRA played a huge role so it offers no evidence of it. Instead this article supports something I had been saying, that the ratings agencies had colluded with the banks to to mark those securities as AAA.
It also says that the biggest contribution to the crisis came from a Bush era regulation. That's something that even I had denied! But I'm convinced now. You're right. It was Bush's fault.
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
bedspirit said:
Holy Fucking Shit man! I keep suggesting that you read the links before you post them. What did you do? Read the first couple sentences and link to it? Just use the link I gave you. It supports your argument far better than this article does. This one assumes we know that the CRA played a huge role so it offers no evidence of it. Instead this article supports something I had been saying, that the ratings agencies had colluded with the banks to to mark those securities as AAA.
It also says that the biggest contribution to the crisis came from a Bush era regulation. That's something that even I had denied! But I'm convinced now. You're right. It was Bush's fault.
Click to expand...

Man your inability to see how CRA the intro to housing bubble crisis has nothing to do with it amazes me. You ignore article after article that clearly point out how CRA was a contributing factor, what do you want unclebuck to say it? Would that make reality more viable to you?
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
lern 2 sentence, dipshit.
Click to expand...
It's called work ethic and being distracted dipshit. I know you have all the time in the world to masturbate in the garage and troll on the internet but that isn't the case for people paying your welfare.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
nontheist said:
It's called work ethic and being distracted dipshit. I know you have all the time in the world to masturbate in the garage and troll on the internet but that isn't the case for people paying your welfare.
Click to expand...
had no idea posting on a pot website was part of work ethic.

the lessons you learn from dipshit sock puppets.
 
bedspirit

bedspirit

Active Member
nontheist said:
Man your inability to see how CRA the intro to housing bubble crisis has nothing to do with it amazes me. You ignore article after article that clearly point out how CRA was a contributing factor, what do you want unclebuck to say it? Would that make reality more viable to you?
Click to expand...
Article after article? So far, all the links you provided support me. This last one only supported 50% of what I've been saying, so I guess that's only a partial defeat for you. The only article that has been linked to that supports your position at all is the one that I linked to. If your goal is to overwhelm me with evidence that shows you're right, you've done a pretty crappy job.

I do like that last Cato article you posted though. I don't know why they think the CRA was such a big deal because the article doesn't say. What they said about the rating agencies and the Recourse rule makes a lot of sense. Good on you for pointing it out, but it is odd that you would support an idea that place the blame on Bush.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
bedspirit said:
Article after article? So far, all the links you provided support me.
.
Click to expand...
All I have to say is, you're either having a hard time comprehending what you are reading, you've put yourself in a position and are afraid to admit you are wrong or you're just straight up delusional.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
All I have to say is, you're either having a hard time comprehending what you are reading, you've put yourself in a position and are afraid to admit you are wrong or you're just straight up delusional.
Click to expand...
all I have to say is, you're either having a hard time comprehending what you are reading, you've put yourself in a position and are afraid to admit you are wrong or you're just straight up delusional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top