I just love how the source of something automagically disqualifies it. Rush said that 2+2=4 the other day, it that all wrong too?
Get a grip.
I'm sorry, but I require something trace back to a credible source, rather than a partisan hack, or a partisan rag, before I accept it, and before I approve of it being spread far and wide as "news".
I guess that man was soo incompetent. I mean.. he only engineered the end to the depression, and led us to victory in the second world war.. effectively taking back the globe on two fronts.
But wait.. he has a D next to his name.. EVIL!
Why don't you bash ike too. i mean, he expanded social security and taxed the crap out of the country to produce those "socialist" highway systems.
You realize the politics involved in the enforcement of this law? The collusion between the Clinton administration and race-baiters like Acorn and Rainbow Coalition? Read The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities to see what really went on with CRA and then tell me it was a harmless, fairly-enforced policy. PLEASE, IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS ARTICLE.
The Manhattan Institute (MI) is a right-wing 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey, who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director.[1]
The CRA is but one of the problems I listed. Like Freddie and Fannie's effects on credit and the housing bubble? While the GOP attempted to reign in the FM's, Dems said "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" to.
Ah, yet another quote from the WSJ's "opinion" column, which is the print equivalent of the sean hannity show.
You realize, of course, that a good portion of our current crisis [wikipedia.org] is caused by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, introduced by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), which in 1999 repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act, opening up "competition" among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. Which in turn lead to our current set of mega-institutions that are so large and intertwined they can't be allowed to fail?
Wrong wrong wrong! That "deregulation" actually helped mitigate the crisis by allowing prudently managed banks like Wells Fargo to diversify their portfolios and products in other areas (like mutual funds, etc) besides home loans. Had they not been able to do so, the bailout would have been a lot bigger. Wamu was stupid, but some banks took advantage of the law.
I'm sorry, but you can keep praying.. in your dreams.. that freeing corporate agents (who are otherwise completely free of liability) from regulation will result in anything but abuse and malfeasance.
I would suggest this article by Stiglitz, a nobel winning economist (disclaimer: and, author of about 50% of the texts through which I earned my economics degree). this article is also instructive.
No, McCain is too liberal and statist on too many issues, and too pandering for me. I am a Reagan Republican.
Read my sig, read the articles I quoted from someone else who is eminently competent, then realize you drank the cool-aid of the corporate fat-cat lobby hook, line, and sinker.
We did the "reaganomics" thing.
The first time it led to depression. The second time it led to massive recession. The third time it led to the greatest across-the-board consolidation (and related consumer abuse) in a century, a "jobless recovery" thanks to offshoring, and eventually our fine credit crisis.
I blame democrats for not pushing hard enough against it.
sourcewatch says this guy follows the austrian school of economics in trying to justify anarcho-capitalist (makes reaganite policies look tame) policies.
Unfortunately, the austrian school is heterodoxical, and has no statistical basis.
Instead it's based on "self-evident axioms". One of these axioms in wikipedia "humans take conscious actions toward chosen goals", rather ignores problems like cognitive dissonance, incomplete information, etc.
I particularly like this quote from wikipedia: " critics of the Austrian school contend that its methods consists of post-hoc analysis and do not generate testable implications, and so fails falsifiability.[2][3]"
It's on shaky ground, having more in line with the intelligent design movement than the chicago school and related statistically based economic theory on which central banks worldwide act.
I would trust their views on the great depression as much as I trust an intelligent design textbook.
American Thinker (AT) is a conservative daily internet publication. According to it website, American Thinker presents a "thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans." [1] There is ample evidence to support the notion that AT serves as part of the right wing's echo chamber.
For those who don't know what the alternative minimum tax is, it's there to keep the stupidly ultra-rich from weaseling out of their taxes using the usual gamut of tax shelters only available to people of their class.
Before you fiscal conservatives get all huffy about how just it is to remove this tax, please take note that, when enacted in the time of the dinosaurs, this tax applied to very very few households in the US.
This tax was enacted because people who couldn't spend their money if they tried with all their might were not paying a red cent.
No longer the billionaire's socialism bill, it's the billionaire's welfare bill, because they don't have to pay their fair share to get it.
I don't know about you.. but there is a difference in their policies, a very substantive one.
Democrats want a welfare state for everyone
Republicans want a welfare state for corporations
I think one is preferable to the other, and that's something to vote for.
Then again, I live in GA, so I won't be voting. There is no way in frozen, psychedelic, sheet-cake paved hell that state will be blue in this election.
Yeah, the current situation where nobody can afford a house because of frozen wages and unreasonable value expectations is SOOO great... maybe for boomers.
For the rest of us, the generations who came after, this is horrific.
The market should be allowed to correct itself, not propped up for the sake of the self-indulgent boomers and the greedy execs who serve them.
This is the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think libs are well-meaning but horribly misguided. Liberals think conservatives are evil (and this gets modded as insightful rather than flamebait!). And it's the conservatives who are "intolerant."
So, conservatives think we're children who are incapable of forming our own opinions, and treat us thusly. Liberals at least have the respect to conclude conservatives are capable of making their own decision to be evil.
Conservatives are intolerant.
Liberals don't rail against the right of "different" people to live as they like.
Liberals don't support thinly veiled, but inherently racist and classist policies.
Liberals don't insist on ramming christianity down our throats.
Liberals are willing to entertain the fact that the poor may not be there because god hates them, or because theyre lazy, but because the fact is our world is one of scarce resources, and the nature of the beast is that some have to lose for others to win. There need to be limits on how much they can lose.
The conservative party emerged as advocates for the upper class, and when crafting consensus policy their perspective is valuable and necessary. If allowed to craft policy alone, they pillage the middle class until it no longer exists.
Since the end of the dixie-crat platform, republicans have also catered to the racist and intolerant who believe they should be allowed to invade the lives of others because they and only they are right.
Additionally, it's simply parroting the unmitigated and unfounded clinton-bashing which originated, unsupported of course, in ultra-conservative astroturfing blogs.
I'm sorry, but the organizations you're bashing were legitimate. Just because they're meant to assist lower income families doesn't make them any more corrupt than the big wall street houses which also fell victim to corporate malfeasance.
How dare you attack democratic defense of the lower-middle and lower classes from abuses of wealthy people who are just as bigoted against them as white supremacists are againt the afro-american population.
Slashdot Mirror
I just love how the source of something automagically disqualifies it. Rush said that 2+2=4 the other day, it that all wrong too?
Get a grip.
I'm sorry, but I require something trace back to a credible source, rather than a partisan hack, or a partisan rag, before I accept it, and before I approve of it being spread far and wide as "news".
Your wikipedia example of the expansion carries this label:
"The neutrality of this article is disputed."
by the way, fixing your sig:
"Deliberately purvey ignorance, get modded troll or flame"
There is this comment debunking the WSJ article.
Then there's this one picking up the rear.
People like you purveying your ignorance are a danger to society, a greater danger than any bombs, and even atomic terrorism.
if only it were an inconvenient truth instead of a convenient lie.
Go swiftboat somewhere else.
"The Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970 created Freddie Mac. "
from your own source on freddie mac.
Ah, fannie mae was made by FDR.
I guess that man was soo incompetent. I mean.. he only engineered the end to the depression, and led us to victory in the second world war.. effectively taking back the globe on two fronts.
But wait.. he has a D next to his name.. EVIL!
Why don't you bash ike too. i mean, he expanded social security and taxed the crap out of the country to produce those "socialist" highway systems.
You realize the politics involved in the enforcement of this law? The collusion between the Clinton administration and race-baiters like Acorn and Rainbow Coalition? Read The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities to see what really went on with CRA and then tell me it was a harmless, fairly-enforced policy. PLEASE, IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS ARTICLE.
City Journal
is published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy research
The Manhattan Institute (MI) is a right-wing 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey, who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director.[1]
The CRA is but one of the problems I listed. Like Freddie and Fannie's effects on credit and the housing bubble? While the GOP attempted to reign in the FM's, Dems said "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" to.
Ah, yet another quote from the WSJ's "opinion" column, which is the print equivalent of the sean hannity show.
You realize, of course, that a good portion of our current crisis [wikipedia.org] is caused by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, introduced by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), which in 1999 repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act, opening up "competition" among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. Which in turn lead to our current set of mega-institutions that are so large and intertwined they can't be allowed to fail?
Wrong wrong wrong! That "deregulation" actually helped mitigate the crisis by allowing prudently managed banks like Wells Fargo to diversify their portfolios and products in other areas (like mutual funds, etc) besides home loans. Had they not been able to do so, the bailout would have been a lot bigger. Wamu was stupid, but some banks took advantage of the law.
I'm sorry, but you can keep praying.. in your dreams.. that freeing corporate agents (who are otherwise completely free of liability) from regulation will result in anything but abuse and malfeasance.
I would suggest this article by Stiglitz, a nobel winning economist (disclaimer: and, author of about 50% of the texts through which I earned my economics degree).
this article is also instructive.
No, McCain is too liberal and statist on too many issues, and too pandering for me. I am a Reagan Republican.
Read my sig, read the articles I quoted from someone else who is eminently competent, then realize you drank the cool-aid of the corporate fat-cat lobby hook, line, and sinker.
We did the "reaganomics" thing.
The first time it led to depression.
The second time it led to massive recession.
The third time it led to the greatest across-the-board consolidation (and related consumer abuse) in a century, a "jobless recovery" thanks to offshoring, and eventually our fine credit crisis.
I blame democrats for not pushing hard enough against it.
sourcewatch says this guy follows the austrian school of economics in trying to justify anarcho-capitalist (makes reaganite policies look tame) policies.
Unfortunately, the austrian school is heterodoxical, and has no statistical basis.
Instead it's based on "self-evident axioms".
One of these axioms in wikipedia "humans take conscious actions toward chosen goals", rather ignores problems like cognitive dissonance, incomplete information, etc.
I particularly like this quote from wikipedia:
" critics of the Austrian school contend that its methods consists of post-hoc analysis and do not generate testable implications, and so fails falsifiability.[2][3]"
It's on shaky ground, having more in line with the intelligent design movement than the chicago school and related statistically based economic theory on which central banks worldwide act.
I would trust their views on the great depression as much as I trust an intelligent design textbook.
source watch report on the american thinker.
This crap you linked originated, pulled from thin air, from fringe right-wing astroturfing blogs.
It is nothing more than the swiftboat of 2008.
Note the corrections already being posted in response.
STOP SPREADING FUD
Wrong. If it was a free market, banks would look at an individual's credit history, income, house location, etc..*snip*
they went with unregulated banks in the days of yore.
the almighty free market, unfettered by regulation, produced excellent results.
The real irony is the chief culprit blamed for this is pretty much the same practice of predatory lending.
subprime vs balloon..
Great.. the AMT is gone.
For those who don't know what the alternative minimum tax is, it's there to keep the stupidly ultra-rich from weaseling out of their taxes using the usual gamut of tax shelters only available to people of their class.
Before you fiscal conservatives get all huffy about how just it is to remove this tax, please take note that, when enacted in the time of the dinosaurs, this tax applied to very very few households in the US.
This tax was enacted because people who couldn't spend their money if they tried with all their might were not paying a red cent.
No longer the billionaire's socialism bill, it's the billionaire's welfare bill, because they don't have to pay their fair share to get it.
I don't know about you.. but there is a difference in their policies, a very substantive one.
Democrats want a welfare state for everyone
Republicans want a welfare state for corporations
I think one is preferable to the other, and that's something to vote for.
Then again, I live in GA, so I won't be voting. There is no way in frozen, psychedelic, sheet-cake paved hell that state will be blue in this election.
no, an ad hominem attack would be me attacking you.
for example:
you are a doo-doo head!
there, an ad hominem.
my comments were ad-source attacks.. i attacked the credibility of your source, justly by the way.
Right, because that couldn't possibly have been taken out of context.
How to lie with facts: take them out of context.
republicans threatened to pass rules which would kill the filibuster.
Specifically, democrats made the same threats regarding other bills, and clotures were called against them.
There were enough blue-dog democrats back then to push any republican bill, and many such bills were passed through them.
nice try.
Oh.. and please look up the definition of ad hominem attack.
Quotes from congressmen... those are really really credible!
The current bill is like trying to get fuel into a car through the tailpipe instead of filling up the gas tank.
no no NO..
the car analogy is good, but you forgot to allude to HIGHWAY WRECKAGE! : )
Yeah, the current situation where nobody can afford a house because of frozen wages and unreasonable value expectations is SOOO great... maybe for boomers.
For the rest of us, the generations who came after, this is horrific.
The market should be allowed to correct itself, not propped up for the sake of the self-indulgent boomers and the greedy execs who serve them.
I worked my childhood away.
I took 2 majors in a top 20 institution.
I graduated with high 5 figure student debts.
I'm delivering pizza, and consulting my career center for the 5'th time after sending out over 300 applications.
Companies don't want to train their labor anymore. They don't want to reward hard work.
They want canned workers for no pay.
The wall street journal opinion column is even more to the right than fox news.
It predates fox news and served as inspiration for the channel.
They're not dumb, they're just evil.
This is the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think libs are well-meaning but horribly misguided. Liberals think conservatives are evil (and this gets modded as insightful rather than flamebait!). And it's the conservatives who are "intolerant."
So, conservatives think we're children who are incapable of forming our own opinions, and treat us thusly.
Liberals at least have the respect to conclude conservatives are capable of making their own decision to be evil.
Conservatives are intolerant.
Liberals don't rail against the right of "different" people to live as they like.
Liberals don't support thinly veiled, but inherently racist and classist policies.
Liberals don't insist on ramming christianity down our throats.
Liberals are willing to entertain the fact that the poor may not be there because god hates them, or because theyre lazy, but because the fact is our world is one of scarce resources, and the nature of the beast is that some have to lose for others to win. There need to be limits on how much they can lose.
The conservative party emerged as advocates for the upper class, and when crafting consensus policy their perspective is valuable and necessary. If allowed to craft policy alone, they pillage the middle class until it no longer exists.
Since the end of the dixie-crat platform, republicans have also catered to the racist and intolerant who believe they should be allowed to invade the lives of others because they and only they are right.
And how they fought John McCain's 2005 home mortgage reform bill.
Democrats retook congress in 2006.
Damn those democrats and their imperius curse.. magically controlling a unitary republican government.
The WSJ opinion column is listed among the most ultra-right publications in the US.
It's about as credible and unbiased as Freedom Socialist
Additionally, it's simply parroting the unmitigated and unfounded clinton-bashing which originated, unsupported of course, in ultra-conservative astroturfing blogs.
I'm sorry, but the organizations you're bashing were legitimate. Just because they're meant to assist lower income families doesn't make them any more corrupt than the big wall street houses which also fell victim to corporate malfeasance.
How dare you attack democratic defense of the lower-middle and lower classes from abuses of wealthy people who are just as bigoted against them as white supremacists are againt the afro-american population.