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.
And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt when he jumps, but he doesn't.
Rather: If Obama was pro-life, he might garner a few moral pro-lifers' votes, ya think?
I can't help it if being pro-life is a trend among evangelicals anymore than you can help that being pro-choice is a trend among non-evangelicals. There are exceptions to both but the vast majority line up as stated.
Interesting. I thought we were talking about Palins total lack of experience and how just because she is a Christian she is getting a pass from the right.
How Obama was brought into the conversation is beyond me (or frogs).
My premise still stands. Right wing conservatives would just as soon stand behind a person with more holes in her resume than any VP pick.. ever.. just because of their faith.. specifically. Abortion.
At least I hope its that. I hope its not because she kills moose (the equivalent of shooting a barn). Cause.. well that would just be stupid.
The problem in your position is you think I'm a democrat. I understand. My views are more progressive than others. The problem is your assumption is wrong.
I said once the primaries were over that I would wait for the debates to make a decision.
McCain made my decision easy for me. Didn't even have to wait for the debates. He made what will go down as quite possibly the dumbest VP pick.. ever. Why did he do that? So he could shore up his base. And that.. the fact that his "base" was shored up with the most ridiculous pick.. ever. That scares me.
Wasn't stealing...it was to give a giggle to those who recognized it.
Quote:
No. That was the end result at an accelerated rate! Do you honestly believe sub-prime mortgages just happened? That they haven't been around?
Unfortunately your understanding of the situation is leading others to believe in something other than the truth. The community reinvestment act has zero, nada, nothing to do with this financial crisis.
I'm afraid you need to do some more research.
Absolutely I know sub-primes have been around. However, the practice of encouraging *ahem* banks to give mortgages to those who could not afford them started during the Clinton years. That's what I said and it is backed up by both news source links I provided. I'm afraid you need to read better. The CRA has EVERYTHING to do with it. It was the root of the problem. But the American people are also at fault for accepting credit they couldn't afford.
Quote:
This financial crisis is entirely because of deregulation. There is no other possible way to spin it. This is about derivitives, credit default swaps, CDO's and the amount of exposure that nobody had any clue as to how to value.
BS. There is plenty of regulation, but the problem with regulation is if there is no enforcement regulations aren't worth anything. If by the lack of regulation you are referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bank-deregulation bill act of 1999 that Obama is on and on about these days, I suggest you check the voting record. It passed 90-0. Democrats in good standing supported the final bill. Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, Clinton Treasury officials whom Obama relies on for advice, supported it. Joe Biden voted for it, it passed the Senate with 90 votes, and President Clinton signed it. I don't want to hear them crying now that this is all Phil Gramm's fault or the fault of deregulation. In their simplistic morality play, anything promoting deregulation must be to blame. But Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were practically arms of the government (“government-sponsored enterprises”) and still did more than any other institution to spread the bad debt before requiring a bailout themselves. It’s certainly possible to fault lax regulation as I mentioned before. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s 2004 decision to allow the investment banks to double their leverage looks foolhardy. But the mistakes and mania that created this crisis can’t be attributed to one man. In other words, Barack Obama and every other Democrat should lay off their scapegoat of the hour. This is a bipartisan mess caused by one party constantly meddling in the affairs of the supposed free-market and another party of so-called conservatives doing nothing about it.
Last edited by Fullback32; 09-23-2008 at 02:09 PM..
Interesting. I thought we were talking about Palins total lack of experience and how just because she is a Christian she is getting a pass from the right.
No, we were talking about being afraid of Palin (see the OP) and you brought up her being pro-choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigthirsty
How Obama was brought into the conversation is beyond me (or frogs).
You started with the hypothetical 'what if's, so I just responded with something I thought you could relate to. Opps!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigthirsty
My premise still stands. Right wing conservatives would just as soon stand behind a person with more holes in her resume than any VP pick.. ever.. just because of their faith.. specifically. Abortion.
NEWSFLASH: Abortion is not Palin's faith, it's Christianity. You know, same one as yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigthirsty
At least I hope its that. I hope its not because she kills moose (the equivalent of shooting a barn). Cause.. well that would just be stupid.
You're right, that is stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigthirsty
The problem in your position is you think I'm a democrat. I understand. My views are more progressive than others. The problem is your assumption is wrong.
I don't know if you're democrat or not, are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigthirsty
I said once the primaries were over that I would wait for the debates to make a decision.
Fair enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigthirsty
McCain made my decision easy for me. Didn't even have to wait for the debates. He made what will go down as quite possibly the dumbest VP pick.. ever. Why did he do that? So he could shore up his base. And that.. the fact that his "base" was shored up with the most ridiculous pick.. ever. That scares me.
OK, my assumption that you were democrat is wrong but you are democrat.
OK got it.
And, you're going to wait til the debates to decide that you're not a democrat but you've already decided your democrat but my assumptions are still wrong.
OK got it.
Thanks for clearing that up. I was very confused, wasn't I?
Absolutely I know sub-primes have been around. However, the practice of encouraging *ahem* banks to give mortgages to those who could not afford them started during the Clinton years.
When during the Clinton years? Like in 1994? Cause I don't remember a financial crisis like this in 1994..
Or was it 1999 when Graham got his bill passed?
Hmmm..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullback32
That's what I said and it is backed up by both news source links I provided.
You provided a link to an article from 1994.
Got any updated material that might make sense in today's economic environment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullback32
I'm afraid you need to read better. The CRA has EVERYTHING to do with it. It was the root of the problem. But the American people are also at fault for accepting credit they couldn't afford.
Beautiful.. its the American peoples fault. If I give too much candy to a baby.. is it the baby's fault for taking it.. or my fault for giving it.
Why do you hate babies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullback32
If by the lack of regulation you are referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bank-deregulation bill act of 1999 that Obama is on and on about these days, I suggest you check the voting record.
Okie dokie. Passed out of the Senate straight down party lines (100% republican.. I'm looking at you John McCain) and passed by a wide margin from the house following revisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullback32
It passed 90-0. Democrats in good standing supported the final bill. Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, Clinton Treasury officials whom Obama relies on for advice, supported it. Joe Biden voted for it, it passed the Senate with 90 votes, and President Clinton signed it.
All true. First vote however was down party lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullback32
I don't want to hear them crying now that this is all Phil Gramm's fault or the fault of deregulation.
but it was..and is still his fault. I don't get it.
cause then he was back with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act shortly thereafter which was a "must pass". The CFM expanded the scope of trading futures and introduced less regulation:
"The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 or CFMA (H.R. 5660 and S.3283) repealed the Shad-Johnson jurisdictional accord, which had banned single stock futures in 1982. The legislation also provided certainty that products offered by banking institutions would not be regulated as futures contracts."
one act promoted bank buyouts and mergers allowing them to grow huge and thus they'd be "too big to fail". So rather than enforcing rules to keep the parties apart.. they now had the perfect vehicle to ride together.
All they needed now was the gas. Hellloooooooooo Commodity Futures Modernization Act... and back to my initial premise of "credit default swaps" in my previous post.
So no.. It wasn't CRA has you reported. It was a combination of the two acts with decreasing margins in an automated world that led to banks sharing risk in Credit Default Swaps so much that they were willing (and able) to take on riskier and riskier loans.
But lets do this in simple terms.
How many "Flip my house" shows did you see in the 1990's.
How many did you see in the new Millenium.
This had nothing to do with CRA. This had everything to do with deregulation sponsored by Mr. Phil Graham.
No, we were talking about being afraid of Palin (see the OP) and you brought up her being pro-choice.
yeah.. it was an example of how because of one policy the christian conservatives would vote for a complete moron and risk this entire country.. hence.. why I'm afraid of Palin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
You started with the hypothetical 'what if's, so I just responded with something I thought you could relate to. Opps!
Oh.. cause I thought you might answer the hypothetical as it related to the OP instead of introducing another hypothetical that had nothing to do with the OP. Silly me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
NEWSFLASH: Abortion is not Palin's faith, it's Christianity. You know, same one as yours.
But I don't wear my stance on abortion on my sleeve and I certainly don't try to gain votes from it (while at the same time making a rape victim pay for a rape kit).
I ask the question again:
If Palin was pro choice would she be defended so vigorously from the right?
me neither squared
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
I don't know if you're democrat or not, are you?
No.. I'm not. I just said that in the previous post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
I don't know if you're democrat or not, are you?
Fair enough
OK, my assumption that you were democrat is wrong but you are democrat.
OK got it.
And, you're going to wait til the debates to decide that you're not a democrat but you've already decided your democrat but my assumptions are still wrong.
OK got it.
Thanks for clearing that up. I was very confused, wasn't I?
Because I think Palin is the most retarded pick in the history of the universe.. I'm a democrat?
Why is it so hard to admit that Palin represents core Christian Right values and because of that you (as in those who vote for McCain) are willing to let her resume slide (like big time) so that she can represent you.
Its not that difficult.. in fact its clear as day.
Why is it so hard to admit that Palin represents core Christian Right values and because of that you (as in those who vote for McCain) are willing to let her resume slide (like big time) so that she can represent you.
Its not that difficult.. in fact its clear as day.
That's ridiculous.
Yes, her morals and values generally seem to line up with Christian values, so do many people's who claim atheism as their religion. You don't have to be a Christian to be moral.
Why don't you explain why you are terrified of inexperience in the VP position but seem to be quite OK with it in the Presidential one.
Her beliefs are too strange and old fashioned. SO the answer is yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann in Oriental
I am very very much afraid that if the GOP wins this election Sarah Palen will try to inflict her Assembly of God thinking on the rest of the country. I think she's very dangerous and I wondered if anyone else feels that way too. We surely do not share her religious beliefs and I wonder if she will try to cause problems for those of us who do not, like she tried to do with the librarian who would not remove some books.
When during the Clinton years? Like in 1994? Cause I don't remember a financial crisis like this in 1994..
You provided a link to an article from 1994.
And that link warned of the problems we are facing now. that is the point.
Quote:
Beautiful.. its the American peoples fault. If I give too much candy to a baby.. is it the baby's fault for taking it.. or my fault for giving it.
Why do you hate babies?
I don't hate babies, but I do think that adults who are buying houses should do a little research before they sign on the dotted line. Are you suggesting that the government should be our nanny and take all responsibility for our actions? I was offered a sub-prime ARM and after reading about them promptly told the mortgage company to get bent...fixed rate conventional...thank you very much.
Quote:
Okie dokie. Passed out of the Senate straight down party lines (100% republican.. I'm looking at you John McCain) and passed by a wide margin from the house following revisions. All true. First vote however was down party lines.
Agree, John McCain was behind it too. Washington can make bipartisan mistakes, but if the bill were so obviously the road to financial perdition, presumably some of these Democrats much keener to regulate the economy than Gramm would have voted “no", but they didn't.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate, repealing the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act that prevented banks from offering customers insurance, investment or commercial banking services. Gramm-Leach-Bliley tore down the artificial walls between financial institutions.
This was in response to Europe and Asia already having universal banking in which financial institutions could undertake varied operations. U.S. banks were finding loopholes in the law to keep up with foreign competitors, and increasingly bumped up against the 60-year-old regulatory constraints. The Gramm bill just blessed the world as it was already evolving.
The deregulation has alleviated the current crisis rather than making it worse. Big, diversified financial institutions have been weathering the crunch better than anyone else and have occasionally swooped in to lessen the pain. Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch, which would have been impossible prior to Gramm’s deregulation. Otherwise, Merrill would either have gone under or been bailed out by the taxpayers. Similarly, J.P. Morgan wouldn’t have taken over Bear Stearns, and Barclays Bank wouldn’t be considering buying Lehman Brothers.
The era of the large investment bank is over with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley transforming themselves into traditional bank holding companies. The investment-bank model of relying on short-term markets for funding is no longer workable. Goldman and Morgan will rely more on less risky sources of funding, as regular banks do. Would you really want a 1930s law saying, “No, sorry, you have to remain pure investment banks and go bust”?
The root of this crisis is subprime loans lavished on people who couldn’t truly afford their homes. This bad debt was securitized,chopped up, and spread throughout the system as complicated financial instruments. Freddie and Fanny saying, "Ah go ahead and lend to bad risks...we buy it up later and them sell them to investment banks." Gramm was always opposed the rush to give marginal borrowers mortgages — and took hell for it from left-wing activist groups — and his deregulation didn’t create securitization.
BTW bigthirsty...I am enjoying the debate with you. It's nice to be able to discuss these things without rhetoric and the nastiness that political discussion can turn to. We kind of have our own Hannity and Combs thing happening here...except I'm a Libertarian (read disaffected Republican) who is agnostic and you're an Independent. We should start our own show. "Tonight on Fullback and Thirsty...Sarah Palin, will she be America's Pope?"
Last edited by Fullback32; 09-23-2008 at 03:32 PM..
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.
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.
