Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-11-2016, 04:54 PM
 
15,068 posts, read 6,111,588 times
Reputation: 5121

Advertisements

I've always been moderate but I've gone from moderately liberal to moderately conservetive (Libertarian).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2016, 04:57 PM
 
572 posts, read 278,356 times
Reputation: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lockdev View Post
I'm not a Republican at all, nor a Democrat. I believe there's too much cronyism on both sides. Neither look out for the interest of the average citizen.

That's why I like Libertarians.
Oh right, because the Libertarians aren't just whatever the Koch brothers want them to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2016, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Florida
33,466 posts, read 17,986,405 times
Reputation: 15476
I am out of the Rino party and now no affiliation.. voting Trump all the way!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2016, 05:06 PM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,614,567 times
Reputation: 14732
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity View Post
What did Republicans do to create the housing crisis?
The proximate cause of the housing bubble, which led to the financial crisis, was the 2004 change in net capital rules at the SEC.

There were many other contributing factors that set the stage, like Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the 25-year decline in interest rates, or the 1971 closing of the gold window, but they were not proximate causes.

All this stuff about HUD and CRA is, like I said in my earlier post, just nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2016, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Florida
33,466 posts, read 17,986,405 times
Reputation: 15476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai View Post
Many seem to forget Bush Jr's role in the housing collapse as well. He made a big push for increased home ownership, especially among Blacks and Hispanics. He supported many of the policies set forth by the Community Redevelopment Act and pushed banks to take on risky loans with low down payments and little documentation. He called himself the "compassionate conservative," which basically made him a liberal when it came to social policy.
Bush also wanted to investigate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but Barney Frank and Maxine Waters stopped three investigations claiming all is well with the housing industry.. they lied.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2016, 05:38 PM
 
3,304 posts, read 2,160,560 times
Reputation: 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova View Post
Bush also wanted to investigate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but Barney Frank and Maxine Waters stopped three investigations claiming all is well with the housing industry.. they lied.
Bush Jr was failure all around. Republicans need to just admit that and learn from the mess that he caused. The time of globalist neoconservatism is over. Everyone should have learned that from the trouncing that Jeb got, but for some reason, there's Republicans who still believe in the Bush family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2016, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Michigan
2,198 posts, read 2,718,623 times
Reputation: 2105
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
You're presenting the two choices of "more regulated" and "less regulated." I believe this to be a forced, flawed dichotomy. Quantity of regulation is not the cause or solution to the crisis.
I wasn't trying to say anything about quantity of regulation. I prefer quality regulation that is limited to the practical extent possible in quantity, as I'm sure you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Because I'm only a socialist within the context of U.S. politics, much in the way that conservatives are only conservative within the context of U.S. politics.

Imagine if I asked conservatives , "Why are you a conservative, given the numerous historical failures of monarchism?" It would be a silly question, because while monarchies are a relevant topic to global conservativism, they aren't relevant to U.S. politics or American conservatives.
But you said that you switched your ideology, not your party allegiance. I would not adopt a different ideology simply because I do not like the people representing, or claiming to represent, that ideology in the US at the present time. I just wouldn't vote for them.

If I were a conservative, for example, I may consider voting for Hillary Clinton because I think she's a lesser evil compared to Donald Trump, but I wouldn't become a liberal because I think Donald Trump is terrible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Furthermore -- it is a question of practicality. I believe in the 'pendulum' concept. I believe the pendulum has swung too far towards a very specific type of right-wing libertarianism that is a perversion of its root ideology.
I would not say that we have anything remotely resembling libertarianism, considering that total taxes (federal, state and local) as a percentage of GDP have been steadily trending upwards for well more than century, barring brief and temporary dips, and are more or less at all-time highs. The only libertarian ideas that have really been implemented to some extent or another are gay marriage, marijuana decriminalization and criminal justice reform.

Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
You're again focused on the size of government as the important variable, when it is only a red herring.

What appeals to me about socialism is the role they expect government to play in society. Size of government is irrelevant to me.
I get this, I just don't see the connection between the collapse of the housing market resulting in your desire for the government to play a larger role in say healthcare or education.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2016, 07:43 PM
 
3,611 posts, read 3,859,057 times
Reputation: 2267
Quote:
Originally Posted by STWR View Post
It's a pretty big stretch to say that giving mortgages to moderate income families starting in 1968 caused a crash 40 years later. All of the predatory lending and impossibly bad investments disguised as safe bets that were being bought up by major banks as if it was raining money didn't happen until much much later...
Without securitization or some other means to transfer liability, if you originate a bad loan you're on the hook. So a lender needs to do their due diligence and not make bad loans. With securitization or an equivalent means for transferring liability, if you originate a bad loan that's profit as long as you can find a buyer. The people who are supposed to make sure people are capable of paying back their loans instead became the people helping them secure loans irrespective of ability to pay.

Loan securitization is a ticking time bomb in a financial system because it means underwriting standards are driven by the demands of the buyers of the securities rather than originators of loans ... who are much less qualified to play the role. It just happened to blow up 40 years later and will again eventually if nothing is done about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
The proximate cause of the housing bubble, which led to the financial crisis, was the 2004 change in net capital rules at the SEC.

There were many other contributing factors that set the stage, like Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the 25-year decline in interest rates, or the 1971 closing of the gold window, but they were not proximate causes.

All this stuff about HUD and CRA is, like I said in my earlier post, just nonsense.
Not sure what capital changes you are referring to, but the securitized-loan fueled housing bubble started before 2004. Before does not necessarily mean because of, but after definitely means not because of.

How is the HUD stuff nonsense? I mean, let me know if the wikipedia articles were materially wrong and what source contradicts them but they stated that Ginnie Mae was the first big driver of mortgage loan securitization in this country.

On the CRA, people often do give it more blame than it deserves because the problem was the underwriting of bad loans across the entire market which was far bigger than CRA loans. Forcing banks to write bad business will cause them to sit down and try to figure out how not to be liable for it, and once they figured out, "wait a second, we can not only dodge this but profit from it!" it was only a matter of time until someone started intentionally seeking out non-creditworthy borrowers to generate more securitized loans (and eventually going so far as to create synthetic CDOs when they ran out of non-creditworthy borrowers). That said, it's more likely than not that someone would have eventually realized this even if the CRA wasn't a thing and we don't know if that was the direct causal chain or if someone came up with the idea completely out of thin air (less likely but possible).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2016, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,385,482 times
Reputation: 24780
Default Have You Switched Sides ? Liberal to Conservative? Conservative to Liberal?

A qualified "yes."

I voted for Republicans almost exclusively from Nixon to 2000.

I now vote against Republicans.

Not so much because I've changed. But because they've gone completely off the rails. They've embraced crazy.

But they are more entertaining than ever.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2016, 08:11 PM
 
788 posts, read 507,236 times
Reputation: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai View Post
Many seem to forget Bush Jr's role in the housing collapse as well. He made a big push for increased home ownership, especially among Blacks and Hispanics. He supported many of the policies set forth by the Community Redevelopment Act and pushed banks to take on risky loans with low down payments and little documentation. He called himself the "compassionate conservative," which basically made him a liberal when it came to social policy.
They forget his role because in the overall picture, his roll was minute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top