God, this is really SCARY! This is exactly what is happening!
This is exactly what is NOT happening. As a former IRS manager I can easily dispute some of the material.And regarding the housing collapse, well, it all started when 3.4 million people defaulted on their mortgages, credit cards and car payments.The things that we see on television are not things we need or must have, but instead are things we could have if we paid for them!And finally, as the largest proportion of wealth is represented by investment accounts, it is recorded and protected, requiring investors to pay taxes on earned income and capital gains. Obama raised the capital gain tax by 33% for 2013.On the other hand, the largest group perpetrating fraud against the federal government and U.S. Treasury is a group known as white, middle income sole proprietorships - pizza shops, nail and hair salons, taverns, plumbers, auto mechanics and detailers, small bakeries, drug dealers, etc - cash businesses that have hidden $billions each year in taxable income.
Capper, your link isn't working. But Allen's link is; the newsbusters site apparently has no problem with breaking copyright. Hm.
My link doesn't work because I didn't put one in there.
Oh, I see, they took the video down. I'll see if I can find another one.
This has been up days ago at NRO. Its a cute fairy tale. Notice how it doesn't bother to back up any of its claims? There is some truth in it, but quite a bit of conjecture. Scary this is made for the teachers association, and they are responsible for teaching the kids. Sounds to me like they have an agenda other than educating the kids. As "smart" as they are you would think they could have come up with something better than this. Here's a template for them to follow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_918789&feature=iv&src_vid=NU6fuFrdCJY&v=1RZVw3no2A4Note how they give you the information to allow you to check the statements they make for yourself? But then again, maybe teachers get used to talking down to people and having them believe everything they say.
IMBR- it’s so good to see you back here, I’m sure we've all missed you. It’s sad when a village loses its idiot, welcome back! Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, let’s talk about your most recent inane statement. “Its a cute fairy tale. Notice how it doesn't bother to back up any of its claims? There is some truth in it, but quite a bit of conjecture.”I notice how you don’t back up any of your claims of conjecture. Care to elaborate Captain Hypocrisy? “Sounds to me like they have an agenda other than educating the kids.”What agenda would that be, pointing out the inherent idiocy of blaming public sector workers for the fiscal problems of the country? “As "smart" as they are you would think they could have come up with something better than this. Here's a template for them to follow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_918789&feature=iv&src_vid=NU6fuFrdCJY&v=1RZVw3no2A4Note how they give you the information to allow you to check the statements they make for yourself? But then again, maybe teachers get used to talking down to people and having them believe everything they say.”That statement really helps to clarify your incredibly puerile thought process. I see you’re thoroughly impressed with a Gish Gallop style propaganda video. I’m unsurprised that that sort of thing appeals to you. Quickly flashing non-contextual headlines and article snippets to a frantic soundtrack, along with intermittent text boxes popping up telling you exactly what conclusions you should be coming to is wonderfully entertaining. You’re right, it’s very effective propaganda. A thoroughly debunked, nonsense premise, but effective on simpletons nonetheless. I can almost see you watching it on your monitor like an infant in a crib entranced by a shiny mobile spinning above its head playing comforting music. If you like that sort of thing, check out Glenn Beck or Alex Jones. You’d love their crap. I’m going to go out on a limb here though and guess you are already intimately familiar with their nonsense. At any rate, I can see why the Asner narrated video isn’t your style. Someone with your heightened intellectual capacity and utter unwillingness to deviate from their paradigm has no use for a slow moving, animated narrative that tells a story without pretending to back up its “conjecture” with random headlines. Have you considered the possibility that perhaps it was made for a slightly more “advanced” audience than yourself? No, probably you haven’t.Anonymous(Yeah, that Anonymous. I told you that you'd remember me.)
I remember, your the one who is so proud of his own intellect that he refuses to take the time to identify it with a moniker.Not surprised to hear the cartoon format works better for your "heightened intellectual capacity" (lol, does working the high steel qualify as heightened?). I'm sure they chose the animated format in order to keep the attention of the smartest among us. Even though it casts serious doubt on some of the conclusions made in the cartoon, you claim the video I suggested was "A thoroughly debunked, nonsense premise". Care to elaborate Captain Hypocrisy? You should take up Cappers offer to write here. I would love to hear some more pearls of wisdom from you.
Yes, I have the time to go through a Gish Gallop video pointing out every absurdity. The fact that you think it casts doubt on anything is very telling. It blames the entire recession on the CRA without mentioning financial and derivative deregulation or Fed policy of interest rate reduction at all. It mentions the GLBA and then ridiculously claims Robert Rubin championed it, not even bothering to say the name Phil Gramm. It's the fucking GRAMM-Leach Bliley Act, yet they don't even mention Phil Gramm,nor do they mention the CFMA at all (another piece of Gramm backed legislation). They fail to mention 55% of commercial real estate loans were underwater even though they weren't affected by the CFA. Nearly 80% of all subprime loans were either not regulated, or only partially regulated by the CRA. Of course they don't mention a peep about the CRA changes in the Bush years allowing easing of restrictions on the definition of small size banks for CRA purposes. They never mention Bush and his "ownership Society". Then they get into Fannie and Freddie and the BS really starts pumping. They never mention that loans originated for private-label securitization defaulted at about six times the rate of Fannie and Freddie loans. They don't mention that the housing bubble occurred during a period when Fannie and Freddie's market share dropped precipitously. On and on and on. It's a bullshit propaganda video meant for people easily transfixed by fast paced, meaningless word salad. You know, your ilk. They never mention the root cause at all. Unregulated securitization of loans. If it was the CRA that caused the increase in mortgage lending, then why was there a bubble in commercial real estate as well? Why were there nearly identical surges in credit liquidity in student loans, auto loans, and credit cards? You state, "Note how they give you the information to allow you to check the statements they make for yourself?" Really? Where so they do that? They show a Wikipedia page and some official looking media logos next to their highlighted statements but never provide a link which would allow you to check the statements within context. Incidentally, the Wikipedia page for Community Reinvestment Act (which the video tells you to Google) does not contain the text they highlight in the video. I guess on Planet Dipshit that qualifies as "giving you the information to allow you to check for yourself" because they know their reality averse followers aren't going to check for themselves. Now you could spend a little bit of time pulling your head out of the echo chamber and actually looking into some of this stuff. Try some pieces written by actual economists, and not crap on Blaze or WorldNetDaily.http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-caused-the-financial-crisis-the-big-lie-goes-viral/2011/10/31/gIQAXlSOqM_story_1.htmlhttp://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.htmlhttp://www.nhi.org/online/issues/125/goingsubprime.htmlhttp://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2010/01/what_caused_the_economic_crisis.htmlhttp://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/for-the-last-time-fannie-and-freddie-didnt-cause-the-housing-crisis/250121/There's a few links to get you started. A word of warning, exposure to reality might make you cry, as you realize your little paradigm you cling to might be false. You're welcome.
And I still want you writing here, dang it. Shoot me an email sometime.
I did your reading assignment. It was laughable. They aren't economists your using to form your opinions, rather partisan news trying to sway opinion. The last one, written by David Min, is on the payroll for George Soros. Excuse me, fucking George Soros. lolThis is the only reference to economists I found:"Conservative economists—ever worried about inflation—tend to fault Greenspan for keeping interest rates too low between 2003 and 2005 as the real estate and credit bubbles inflated. This is the view, for instance, of Stanford economist and former Reagan adviser John Taylor, who argues that the Fed's easy money policies spurred a frenzy of irresponsible borrowing on the part of banks and consumers alike.Liberal analysts, by contrast, are more likely to focus on the way Greenspan's aversion to regulation transformed pell-mell innovation in financial products and excessive bank leverage into lethal phenomena. The pithiest explanation I've seen comes from New York Times columnist and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who noted in one interview: "Regulation didn't keep up with the system." In this view, the emergence of an unsupervised market in more and more exotic derivatives—credit-default swaps (CDSs), collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), CDSs on CDOs (the esoteric instruments that wrecked AIG)—allowed heedless financial institutions to put the whole financial system at risk. "Financial innovation + inadequate regulation = recipe for disaster is also the favored explanation of Greenspan's successor, Ben Bernanke, who downplays low interest rates as a cause (perhaps because he supported them at the time) and attributes the crisis to regulatory failure."-Jacob WeisbergJacob Weisberg is chairman and editor-in-chief of the Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy (non partisan I'm sure). Which answers your question of why commercial paper and student loans/auto loans failed, low interest rates spurred bad borrowing decisions.Your "nobel laureate" also thinks stimulus failed because only half as much money was spent versus what was needed. He can't bring himself to say half of it was wasted on special interests.The amount of influence of CRA versus de-regulation is debatable, but the fact that the person using the court system to force banks to devise ways to get people into homes they could not afford is sitting in the white house now makes any influence it had more important.But all is well now, because the smart people are in charge at the federal level, right?Yes, you should write here. Less anger maybe, but your a hard guy to figure out, and that makes you interesting.As far as the cartoon in question here, I think you said it better than me, "a slow moving, animated narrative that tells a story without pretending to back up its “conjecture”....
In IMBAR's world, conjecture = any reality that doesn't fit his warped perspective.
"I did your reading assignment. It was laughable. "Really, why laughable? I mean, I notice you didn't try to rebut any of the statistics within the articles, just went immediately to the poisoning the well fallacy (several times in fact). Nice job! How very Teabilly of you. You even threw George Soros in at one point (poor F-bomb usage BTW, it lacked the punch necessary to make it really stand out), rather passe don't you think? I see you do follow Glenn Beck though. See, I had hoped that the provided links would be a starting point for you. I had hoped that exposure to a reality based world might open up your little mind and lead you on a journey of exploration. I see my hopes were misplaced. "Conservative economists—ever worried about inflation—tend to fault Greenspan for keeping interest rates too low between 2003 and 2005 as the real estate and credit bubbles inflated."Hmmm, but they don't mention the CRA or Fannie and Freddie, why is that?"Which answers your question of why commercial paper and student loans/auto loans failed, low interest rates spurred bad borrowing decisions."Ah yes, I forgot, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. What I actually asked was, " why was there a bubble in commercial real estate as well? Why were there nearly identical surges in credit liquidity in student loans, auto loans, and credit cards? Nice effort on your part to try to once again blame borrowers. You just can't bring yourself to impugn Wall Street or Corporations can you. Actually student/auto loans and credit cards didn't "fail", the default rate skyrocketed after the recession hit. I know you don't know what credit liquidity means, so I'll simplify the question. Why were lending institutions increasing the available credit to purchase those products? Here's a hint: They're all securitized loans, meaning they can all be repackaged with other loans and sold as investments. http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/stein/files/SecuritizationShadowBankingAndFragilityRevised.pdf This, thanks to the GLBA and CFMA. Since they're not regulated by the CRA, the CRA had no effect on them. If, as claimed by your video, the CRA was the cause of the increase in home loans, why then did these other loan types increase at nearly identical rates? I noticed you didn't even address commercial real estate loans, probably because you didn't want to blame that on "bad borrowing decisions". "Your "nobel laureate" also thinks stimulus failed because only half as much money was spent versus what was needed. He can't bring himself to say half of it was wasted on special interests."Paul Krugman is my Nobel Laureate? And here I didn't even realize I was a member of The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. I see, because Krugman is left leaning he's "mine". More of your tribalist mentality showing through. Not that it's in any way germaine to this particular conversation but he isn't alone amongst economists in that view. I know I'm going to regret this, but please regale us all with how "half of it was wasted on special interests". You're aware, I'm sure, that about 36%, or $289.6 billion of the stimulus was tax cuts right? Another $58 billion went to aid to State and local governments, so please, where did more than $394 billion get wasted on special interests? Be sure to explain how it was wasted.
(Cont'd)"The amount of influence of CRA versus de-regulation is debatable,"No, it really isn't. Furthermore, that isn't what your propaganda video said. It said that the CRA was the reason for the housing bubble and as a result, the recession. It went on to claim that Democrats were solely to blame for the CRA and the GLBA, which actually is laughable."but the fact that the person using the court system to force banks to devise ways to get people into homes they could not afford is sitting in the white house now makes any influence it had more important."Okay, what you appear to be saying here makes no sense at all. I could be wrong because my imbecile to English translator appears to be malfunctioning. It appears as though you're trying to imply that Obama "forced" banks to make loans to borrowers that they didn't want to. Even you can't be that daft. First, explain to us all how it is that banks were "forced" to make loans they didn't want to. Then, explain to us all how it is that Obama "forced" them to, when he didn't even join the U.S. Senate until January of 2005. Then, explain to us how any of that would've mattered anyway as nearly 80% of subprime loans were not regulated, or only partially regulated by the CRA. "Yes, you should write here. Less anger maybe"Perhaps I will, but I'm not at all angry. I've just come to realize that rational, honest discourse with people like yourself is impossible. You live in a fantasy world where any data that doesn't conform to your narrative is biased and discounted. You make wild claims, and when challenged on them, either don't respond or move the goalposts. This leads me to one of two possible conclusions, either; A: The Dunning Kruger effect, or B: Intellectual dishonestyEither way it isn't worth treating you with any respect. Your only value is in ridicule and entertainment, and make no mistake, I do find you entertaining. Until you can show that you can demonstrate reason, then what's the point of being respectful? In all fairness, perhaps I should cut you some slack. After all, it may not be your fault: http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/16/0146167212439213.abstract?rss=1"but your a hard guy to figure out"Why would anyone be easy to "figure out"? Maybe that's part of your problem, trying to put neat little labels on everyone in an attempt to categorize them. Besides, I think you'd have a hard time figuring out a connect-the-dots puzzle on the back of a box of Golden Grahams if Beck or Limbaugh wasn't there to tell you what the solution was." As far as the cartoon in question here, I think you said it better than me,"Now that's the first honest thing I think I've ever seen you write.
(Cont'd-Last one, promise)I'll leave you with some more links. This time to some less... unqualified sources. We'll start with the official Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) report. This is the official report of the government commission tasked with investigating the causes of the financial crisis: http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/reporthttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1669401http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/publications/subprime-lending-and-community-reinvestment-acthttp://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/15052/website_elul.pdfhttp://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/04/yet-again-it-wa.htmlhttp://www.newamerica.net/blog/asset-building/2008/its-still-not-cra-7222http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/cra/cra_lending_during_subprime_meltdown.pdfhttp://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr318.htmlhttp://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/policy-legislation/congress/cra-not-to-blame-for-crisis.pdfhttp://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.htmlThere you go, knock yourself out. I'll send an Email to Capper, until then, study harder.
Let me get this straight now, I'm the "Intellectually dishonest, imbecile, Teabilly" and you know the proper usage of the "f-bomb". AND, I am the one who is "trying to put neat little labels on everyone in an attempt to categorize them". Does that sum up your "heightened intellectual capacity"? Send me that connect the dots puzzle and I'll try it out. "Either way it isn't worth treating you with any respect. Your only value is in ridicule and entertainment" You are reading this, right Capper? Does this fit the general mindset of people who write in your forum?Anyway, you made a reference to moving the goalposts, you'll need to back that up a bit. I used that article because it rightly brings government policy into blame for the the financial crisis, something the cartoon seemed to ignore. I conceded that the amount of CDA versus de-regulation had on the crisis is debatable. But your heightened capacity seems to think otherwise. I've said it here before, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the cartoon and the "propaganda" video, but not for you apparently. But if you read the dissenting opinions in your FCIC report you'll find that there isn't a resolve on this issue. But it's me that can't accept any opinions that disagree with my partisan stance? right?"It appears as though you're trying to imply that Obama "forced" banks to make loans to borrowers that they didn't want to. Even you can't be that daft. First, explain to us all how it is that banks were "forced" to make loans they didn't want to" Let me help you help yourself on this one: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/capitalism-institute/2012/sep/3/bombshell-obama-created-subprime-loans-lawyer/ and this: http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2012/09/obama-sued-citibank-in-1995-mortgage-discrimination-case-of-186-obama-client-homeowners-only-19-still-own-homes-multiple-bankruptcies/I'll still show you respect, even if you don't in return. You can be the smart one, you seem to need that boost to your self esteem more than I.
“Let me get this straight now, I'm the "Intellectually dishonest, imbecile, Teabilly" and you know the proper usage of the "f-bomb". AND, I am the one who is "trying to put neat little labels on everyone in an attempt to categorize them".”Once again, reading comprehension. Point out where I labeled you as any of those things. Making Soros references IS very Teabilly. That statement WAS written in a way that was rather imbecilic. I said there were two conclusions, one of which is intellectual dishonesty. None of those things btw, labels you, they describe statements or behaviors. “you are reading this, right Capper? Does this fit the general mindset of people who write in your forum?”What are you, Dwight Schrute? MICHAEL!!!! I guess in addition to being a member of The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, with Economics prize voting privileges, you think I’m some ambassador of this forum. Like all contributors and posters, my statements and opinions are my own. This may have been my favorite statement you’ve ever made. The contributors to this blog spend their own time bringing stories, reporting, and analysis to the readers. You consistently make posts adding nothing of value. You make Ad Hominem attacks on the posters and subjects of the posts, you parrot right wing rhetoric, you add nothing to the dialogue. From what I can tell, your only purpose isn’t to engage in discourse, it’s to annoy contributors and posters. You have demonstrated by your repeated comments to this blog, that you don’t respect the posters and your intent is to ridicule. When someone treats you in kind, you whine about it. Take this particular post for instance. Capper posts a video. You refute NOTHING within the video. You could’ve laid out an argument why you believe things in the video are “conjecture”, what you believe instead, and why. What did you do? You mocked the initial video, sent a link to a right wing propaganda video, and then castigated teachers. Now you’re free to say whatever you want, but when you repeatedly make asinine comments don’t be butt sore when you aren’t respected and are ridiculed for them. The truly sad part is that you’re actually cogent enough that you could be an asset to the dialogue here. You could actually contribute to the discourse as dissenting opinions are essential to dialogue. Instead, you choose to fluff for a political party. It’s more important to you defend or advance party talking points than to seek out truth. That’s where the intellectual dishonesty comes in.
(cont'd)“Anyway, you made a reference to moving the goalposts, you'll need to back that up a bit.”I don’t NEED to do anything. It’s self evident. For your benefit, because you clearly don’t understand, I’ll explain. You claimed the video Capper posted contained conjecture. As evidence for this statement, you linked a propaganda video that stated definitively that the CRA, Fannie & Freddie, and Democrats were to blame for the housing bubble and economic collapse. When evidence was presented to you that this wasn’t the case, you then claimed that the influence of CRA vs deregulation was debatable. You moved the goalposts. You changed the parameters of your argument after the fact. First, the CRA was the root cause, deregulation played no part. Then, it was debatable. Another example would be here: http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2012/09/dont-come-back-you-cost-too-much.html#comment-form I’ll just repeat what I wrote there: “First, you said that the Veterans Jobs Bill was “loaded with pork spending and kickbacks to unions.” A review of the language proved that statement to be false. Did you retract it? Of course not. Then you changed direction claiming, “it denies medicare benefits to people who owe back taxes.” Once again, a review of the bill proved that to be false as well.” You moved the goalposts. The bill was loaded with pork (it was a stand alone bill), then you moved the goalposts saying it denies Medicare benefits, it didn’t. It denied payments to providers. You still refused to admit you were wrong and that Republicans were being obstructionist. This is your modus operandi. This is why you are undeserving of respect. “I used that article because it rightly brings government policy into blame for the the financial crisis, something the cartoon seemed to ignore.”Deregulation IS government policy dumb ass. It blamed Fed policy, which, if you were able to comprehend a basic sentence, is something I stated as a potential cause that your propaganda video left out. “It blames the entire recession on the CRA without mentioning financial and derivative deregulation or Fed policy of interest rate reduction at all.” If your argument was that you Fed policy vs governmental deregulation is a debatable cause then yes, you would be correct. “I've said it here before, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the cartoon and the "propaganda" video” No, it doesn’t. The cartoon does a pretty good job of laying out what happened, if rather simplistically (which is the point). Your video is pure unsupported, easily refuted fantasy. It’s a joke. It has nothing to do with truth and isn’t debatable. “But if you read the dissenting opinions in your FCIC report you'll find that there isn't a resolve on this issue.” You mean the dissenting opinion that states this, “Neither the Community Reinvestment Act nor removalof the Glass-Steagall firewall was a significant cause.”? They then go on to discuss multiple factors that contributed including Fed policy. Or do you mean the dissent by Peter Wallison, who made a second dissenting report by himself? The same Peter Wallison who is an AEI fellow who specializes in, you guessed it, promoting financial market deregulation. Shocking that he wouldn’t want to impugn financial deregulation. The same Pater Wallison, who in his dissent, ignored all evidence showing non-CRA regulated institutions made up $80% of subprime loans. The same Peter Wallison who’s entire argument is the same as your propaganda video? The same Peter Wallison who had to have his own dissenting statement because NO other FCIC commissioner agreed with his assessment? No, there isn’t a 100% consensus, probably because the events leading up to it were myriad and complicated. There are those that think we didn’t land on the moon, but that doesn’t mean it’s debatable.
(cont'd)“Let me help you help yourself on this one: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/capitalism-institute/2012/sep/3/bombshell-obama-created-subprime-loans-lawyer/ and this: http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2012/09/obama-sued-citibank-in-1995-mortgage-discrimination-case-of-186-obama-client-homeowners-only-19-still-own-homes-multiple-bankruptcies/”Seriously Dwight? This is your best? This is what I’m talking about. When you frequent sites like the Daily Caller (which is where those links source from), you will have a hard time living in a reality based world. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/loans.asp Even if the story was true, the settlement didn’t “force” banks to make loans- http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-IL-0011-0008.pdf (you still haven’t laid out how it is that the CRA forces banks to make loans to people who shouldn’t have one). This is exactly what I’m talking about. You aren’t interested in honestly assessing problems, you want to score points for your team. Now you just end up looking like even more of an ass.Dwight, when you want to venture into reality, and have an honest discussion where adults can try to find common cause based on insignificant things like facts, science, and history, then I’ll show you respect. If you want to keep regurgitating debunked Daily Caller hit pieces, and acting like the court jester, then I’m going to keep pointing out the silly clown.