The Goat Pen

Toemeesleather wrote:and probably more so..

Just like gubment, you go too far and lose all credibility.

The GOP gets the official Professor Tiger "and probably more so" rating for this reason:

Everybody expects the Dem's to come up with a monstrosity like the CRA. It and the array of policies with it have all the business irrationality and utopian racial/social engineering that define have defined liberal economics for decades.

However, the R's are supposed to be the economic grownups in the room. They are all steeped in sound business practices and fiscal sanity. They should have taken one look at the lending/banking volcano brewing under their feet, and used their control of the government to put a stop to it. But they did not. In my view, their failure to practice their own sound economic principles makes them more blameworthy than the Dem's, who were just doing economic looniness like Dem's always do.

It's like when a man is caught cheating on his wife, it's not news when the cheater is a politician or NBA player. It IS news when the cheater is a preacher of family values.

You've got a future.....at the NYT.

"It and the array of policies with it have all the business irrationality and utopian racial/social engineering that define have defined liberal economics for decades."

And yet it's the forum's premiere "conservative" puter who is posting stuff about the government needing to provide "certainty" before businesses will start investing again...

Professor Tiger wrote:

Toemeesleather wrote:and probably more so..

Just like gubment, you go too far and lose all credibility.

The GOP gets the official Professor Tiger "and probably more so" rating for this reason:

Everybody expects the Dem's to come up with a monstrosity like the CRA. It and the array of policies with it have all the business irrationality and utopian racial/social engineering that define have defined liberal economics for decades.

However, the R's are supposed to be the economic grownups in the room. They are all steeped in sound business practices and fiscal sanity. They should have taken one look at the lending/banking volcano brewing under their feet, and used their control of the government to put a stop to it. But they did not. In my view, their failure to practice their own sound economic principles makes them more blameworthy than the Dem's, who were just doing economic looniness like Dem's always do.

It's like when a man is caught cheating on his wife, it's not news when the cheater is a politician or NBA player. It IS news when the cheater is a preacher of family values.

20 year old man is in jail for drug possession, DUI and stealing $1000 from his parents....his parents raised the kid right, taught him right from wrong, made sure he did his best in school(he scored 1350 on his SAT), if fact, he graduated high school in the top 10% of his class....who do you blame for him being in jail?

Professor Tiger wrote:

Toemeesleather wrote:and probably more so..

Just like gubment, you go too far and lose all credibility.

The GOP gets the official Professor Tiger "and probably more so" rating for this reason:

Everybody expects the Dem's to come up with a monstrosity like the CRA. It and the array of policies with it have all the business irrationality and utopian racial/social engineering that define have defined liberal economics for decades.

However, the R's are supposed to be the economic grownups in the room. They are all steeped in sound business practices and fiscal sanity. They should have taken one look at the lending/banking volcano brewing under their feet, and used their control of the government to put a stop to it.

When Senator McCain approached Congressman Frank in 2005 about "stepping in" with Fannie and Freddie to regulate the spigot (so to speak) Frank told McCain that Fannie and Freddie were perfect, that everything goign great, mind your own fucking business and go back to Arizona. Basically, Barney Frank (Ranking minority leader of the House Financial Services Comitee) told McCain, shut up and let the adults talk....

...then the shit hit the fan. And Frank has been scrambling for the last few years to point fingers at everyone else other than himself and Fannie and Freddie. And with a compliant media and a brain dead Dem-voting Congressional district of zombies, he has pulled it off....

The Republicans wanted to do "something" to stop what would have happened in 2008 from happening, but the one thing that they would have done (what McCain would have done) would have "hurt" the people that Frank and other Congressional Democrats are most beholden, poor and minorities. The Democrats would never have allowed that to happen, never ever. To do anything to make things harder to get loans (prior to 2008) was absolute taboo (and Frank would have defined as racist.) And the damage is done. Frank has already succeeded in getting the lending rate so low that Fannie and Freddie are the ONLY source of lending for home loans. The rates are just so low, no one can compete so they don't even bother trying. So pretty much all loans originate with "Fren-nie."

Here is something the GOP could have done, SHOULD have done....

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... die/70363/

The Atlantic wrote:Answer: raise Frannie's pricing.

At the moment there is nobody doing conforming mortgages except Fannie and Freddie. Indeed there is almost nobody doing mortgages of any kind except Fannie and Freddie. If the free market wants the business they can have it. (They just don't want it at this sort of interest rate spread - and I don't blame them.)

All the government need to do is tell Frannie to raise their price a little each quarter. Currently they charge 20-25bps for guaranteeing mortgages. (The free market won't take credit risk at that price.) So it is entirely open to the FHFA (and hence the Treasury) to tell Fannie and Freddie to raise their prices by 5bps. The government will get paid better for the risk they are taking (and what free market ideologue will disagree with that) and the private sector can compete if they want to.

I doubt the free market will. But then in a quarter or two Frannie can raise their pricing by another 5 bps. And a quarter or two later Frannie can raise by another 5bps.

At some stage you will get to a level where the private sector chooses to compete. Frannie should not set its price competitively though. In another quarter they should raise the price another 5bps. And in another quarter they should raise again.

Over time Frannie will become non-competitive. It will shrink simply because bankers and mortgage brokers do not bring it business. And so Frannie is put into market chosen run-off and the business is effectively privatized.

Barney Frank would NEVER have allowed this happen. Why surrender back to the private sector what government has worked so hard to acquire for itself? Besides, is the private sector going to do what is in the best interest of the poor and the minorities with regards to home loans? No, not according to Frank. Return this to the private sector and it is more expensive and it would (by virtue of the free market) price out too many people.

"who do you blame for him being in jail?"

I blame the government for the drug part of it...

"When Senator McCain approached Congressman Frank in 2005"

Prof was talking about what repubs did in the 90's, when they controlled the congress and let the CRA thru when they could've stopped it. Try addressing that point, fuckwad, instead of making up your own...

I blame the government for the drug part of it..


Primarily repubs I presume.

20 year old man is in jail for drug possession, DUI and stealing $1000 from his parents....his parents raised the kid right, taught him right from wrong, made sure he did his best in school(he scored 1350 on his SAT), if fact, he graduated high school in the top 10% of his class....who do you blame for him being in jail?

If the "parents" are supposed to be the R's and the 20 year old is supposed to be the D's, that analogy is pretty weak. But if you add to it that the parents knew their child was doing drugs starting in the 5th grade, and they did nothing to stop it, then your analogy would be spot on.

If the "parents" are supposed to be the R's and the 20 year old is supposed to be the D's,


Way over thinking....the analogy is that good kids can come from bad parents, and bad kids can come from good parents.


And of course, the opposite happens most of the time.

Toemeesleather wrote:I blame the government for the drug part of it..


Primarily repubs I presume.

I would say repubs are at the very least more vocally bulldoggish about being tough on drugs than dems are in general...

"the analogy is that good kids can come from bad parents, and bad kids can come from good parents.

And of course, the opposite happens most of the time."

You stated two opposites, so which one were you referring to in the second sentence?

Good kids come from good parents/bad kids come from bad parents.

hedge wrote:"When Senator McCain approached Congressman Frank in 2005"

Prof was talking about what repubs did in the 90's, when they controlled the congress and let the CRA thru when they could've stopped it. Try addressing that point, fuckwad, instead of making up your own...

CRA got through in the 1970s. The GOP could not stop it. When Clinton was elected and got it going again full speed in 1993, the GOP could not stop it. Try addressing that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

It has actually been amended many times, biggest amendments may have been a result of the Savings and Loan scandal in 1990. But the principal of the differences in the two parties (Dem vs GOP) and how they look at the act in and of itself remain the same: is redlining something that government must step in to stop and if so, what does government do to banks to discourage it?

Now Hedge, you and I can go back and forth as to validity of CRA and how it added to the fiscal nightmare in 2008 (how many of those loans that were welched were made to people that would NOT have been made had it not been for CRA) and thus, you get into politics. For the Democrats, it was good intentions on their part, put poor people in houses at all costs. For the Republicans, they liked that too (but now they like it less and less.) The GOP may have learned something about this whole thing while the Democrats have learned the way they get re-elected is make sure they DON'T learn something.

CRA got through in the 1970s. The GOP could not stop it. When Clinton was elected and got it going again full speed in 1993, the GOP could not stop it. Try addressing that point.

I will gladly address that point. The Republican George W. Bush was president from 2001-2008. The R's held control of the Senate from 1995-2001, and from 2003-2007. The R's held control of the House from 1995-2007. So if, during their 6- 8 year span of rule, the R's wanted to undo CRA and all its spinoff craziness, the D's could not have stopped it.

So after reading Prof's post, IB, what would you say the repubs learned? LMAO. No matter what repubs do, you're going to find a reason why it wasn't their fault. Or even worse, why it was the dems fault. You're a party apologist, a shill. You haven't had an independent thought in your life...

hedge wrote:So after reading Prof's post, IB, what would you say the repubs learned? LMAO. No matter what repubs do, you're going to find a reason why it wasn't their fault. Or even worse, why it was the dems fault. You're a party apologist, a shill. You haven't had an independent thought in your life...

Well, the GOP may have learned that they missed some opportunities. No, I'm not always going to say it wasn't their fault Hedge. And yes, I do have indpendant thoughts in my head.

The problem the GOP faces is that too many of them have a difficult time communicating exactly WHY their way is best and convincing people that THAT IS SO. That is what made Reagan so unique, so special. He could communicate. Ronnie was dead set at dismantling LBJ's Great Society by any and all means necessary and he did a damn good job explaining why. Trouble is, the Tip O'Neal 1980s Democratic Congress cock blocked him at every turn. We had to settle for the dismantling on the CAB (started by Carter, finished with Reagan eliminating the do nothing ICC) and repealing things like the Fairness Doctrine. Small steps toward the bigger picture.

Many GOP in the Senate and the Congress would struggle (mightily) and explainging exactly why they are Republican. That is mostly because they can't identify the core principal differences between being a Republican vs being a Libertarian. The differences between Dem and GOP are obvious to them but that isn't digging deep enough. Conservative principals sometimes means less liberty and they do a terrible (DEPLORABLE) job explaining why we (as a people) are not responsible for ALL those liberties.

Romney could communicate (perhaps even better than Reagan) but not inspire. It was just not in his nature to be an inspirational authority figure that people could respect they way they did Reagan. Now part of this may stem from a cultural divide. The LDS are not inspirational people. That is just not in their nature. (Even their prophets are dry and unassuming.) They are boring. The LDS are big on reading books, following rules, and respecting authority but (as a whole) do a terrible job displaying that level of authority in their most prolific members (like Romney) to people outside their faith. And they know it, they are not demonstrative people (the way a Chris Christie is.) Mitt struggled to inspire because there just wasn't a way for him to convince people that he was as ordinary as they were (because he wasn't) and failing that, was unable to communicate that his being extra-ordinary was a plus, not a minus. He kept thinking staying the course on being above all the cultural nonsense that the LDS do not even recognize would have given him some kind of an edge. It wound up being a liability because fewer people turned out to vote GOP in 2012 that turned out for the milk-toast McCain.

In too many ways, Romney was the anti-Palin. Sarah was all icing, all show, all inspiration and (unfortunately) all rhetoric. She was great at inspiring but the moderates came to realize that she was clueless. Romney was all cake, with a lot of layers. His problem was there was no show. He was like the perfectly bland, faithful candidate, with no minuses. And as a result, he didn't sit well with too many un-perfect people who just didn't see ordinary failings of ordinary human beings. Great that he made a fortune, that he was so smart, that his wife was a Cancer survivor and was lucky enough to marry a rich great looking faithful man, and that all five of his sons have model good looks (and each married Mormon Barbie dolls breeding lots more Mormon Kens and Barbies.) Okay, what are you a robot Willard Mitt? Go have a drink. Mellow out. You are too boring to be President. You are far too clinical and antiseptic to be President. Serious question Governor, do you have any friends other than your wife? Knowing the LDS the way I do, my guess would be no. Your bland, dry, unassuming nature, puts people off and makes them uncomfortable with you. So although they didn't vote for President Obama, far less came out to vote AT ALL.

That was a mistake. A painful lesson. The cost to the people of this country is Obamacare.

hedge wrote:"When Senator McCain approached Congressman Frank in 2005"

Prof was talking about what repubs did in the 90's, when they controlled the congress and let the CRA thru when they could've stopped it. Try addressing that point, fuckwad, instead of making up your own...

Doesn't make sense anyway. In 2005, the House and Senate were both controlled by Republicans. In the house, much more so than the Senate, bills are controlled by the majority. This fits the silliness. Blame the poor and their decisions for bringing down the entire country's economic system, when they control very little of the economic clout in the country and blame Barney Frank of the minority party when the control of govt at the time was in the hands of the Republicans.

Owlman wrote:

hedge wrote:"When Senator McCain approached Congressman Frank in 2005"

Prof was talking about what repubs did in the 90's, when they controlled the congress and let the CRA thru when they could've stopped it. Try addressing that point, fuckwad, instead of making up your own...

Doesn't make sense anyway. In 2005, the House and Senate were both controlled by Republicans. In the house, much more so than the Senate, bills are controlled by the majority. This fits the silliness. Blame the poor and their decisions for bringing down the entire country's economic system, when they control very little of the economic clout in the country and blame Barney Frank of the minority party when the control of govt at the time was in the hands of the Republicans.

It is not the "poor" that is to be blamed. It is the "irresponsible." If you struggle to earn $650/week to take home $500 a week to feed your family of five and make that $973/month mortgage payment where the remaining $1027/month pays for the $180 payment on a second hand, 6 year old SUV, gas for your car and your wife's car, and putting food on the table, you are responible. You might not be wealthy (or even middle class) but that doesn't matter. You are responsible enough for that 50 year old, 3 bedroom, 2 bath home, on that fifth of an acre and the concrete slab.

If (however) you easily clear $1800/week to take home over $1300 a week to pay for your designer shoes, your magazine subscriptions, your Sirus Radio, your cable/directv, your 2 packs a cigarettes a day, your business lunches, your lottery tickets, your WiFi internet, your XBox, your gym membership, your dinner out every night, going shopping for your ONE child's clothes at Neiman Marcus, your cruises, your plane trips, your $672/month Escalade payment, and grooming for your two dogs that don't shed, you may or may NOT be able to afford that $1500/month payment on that 40 year old townhouse that you currently have that isn't roomy enough anymore, let alone the $2500/month payment on the 8 year old McMansion you think you are deserving. Numbers say you may have the income to support such a payment but your lifestyle has proven that you are way beyond your means. Low and behold, you "welch." And I'm sure, you will have a boat load of excuses (we've all heard them.)

It all stems back to responsibility. Part of responsibility is knowing that you just can't have it all. You can have "some" but not "all." For people who are used to always having it "all" then this simply does not compute in their mind. And when money conflict sets in, this has led to a lot of drinking, drug use, and a whole lot of divorces and ruined lives.

From an article about Warren Rudman:

"He is perhaps most well-known from his Senate years as co-sponsor of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget-cutting law. He left the Senate in 1993, frustrated that the law never reached its potential because Congress and presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush played politics instead of insisting on spending cuts."