Trains

In article , ST wrote:

On 10/15/08 4:41 PM, in article
, "Howard Kveck"
wrote:

In article , ST

wrote:

UNTIL you jerks can tell me you are stupid enough to sign on to one of
those
mortgages where you pay interest only for 2 years and then your payment
DOUBLES and you know your income will not THEN I will think you really
believe in you rhetoric.

Because the mortgage brokers told them that it would go up but only a
little. They were not telling people that their mortgage payment would
double. The low income people we're talking about overwhelmingly have
not previously owned so they were inexperienced in the process of the
paperwork involved and (as I've said before) since most people are raised to
**trust banks and bankers**, they had no reason to doubt it when the broker
told them stuff that turned out to be bull****.

Richer people who got ARMs while buying McMansions or condos to flip
should have known better but were stupid enough to think the price of the
homes they were buying would always go up. They were wrong. And that is
the group who are responsible for the largest part of the foreclosures.

Class warfare talking points.......

This coming from a guy who immediately blamed the program that he thinks was
designed to qualify people based on their ethnicities and alleged "lower" social
status?

--
tanx,
Howard

Abandon the Creeping Meatball!

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
pointless stuff

Barack Obama said "Hi" to a child molester once. That's all that really
matters.

http://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/1...ssy-dan-riehl/

And check the 'Update' on this one:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=12325

--
tanx,
Howard

Abandon the Creeping Meatball!

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

On Oct 15, 5:06 pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article
,
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

On Oct 15, 12:31 am, Howard Kveck wrote:
Whether you can recognize it or not, those articles were backing up
what I've said, ...

No they don't. You are in denial. That won't change. That's good
cuz I know I can drop out.

I guess this is like when you sniffed that the "The "middle class" is vague.
It is code for growth of government." You decide how to define things and
whether it has anything to do with reality is right out the window. Very curious
but whatever.

If you think you can claim Gordon debunked Dilorenzo and Liebowitz,
and really just for the point of deflecting all discussion to mean
evil racists, then you are simply in the tank and no amount of reason
or facts could possibly sway you. You are in the tank. Just admit it
-- you are not open-minded in the least bit.

I think the Gordon article spelled out what actually was happening with CRA. He
wasn't claiming that racism was at the core of DiLorenzo's argument. As for you
passing judgement on anyone's open mindedness, well, I'm not trying to be insulting
but that's not your strong suit.

The whole thing is a pyramiding of credit off the Fed.

I don't completely disagree with that.

This is a basic fact and it is always bound to crash, although all you partiers
are god damn drunk and stupid on credit when the cops show up.

Credit is a seriously overdone thing in this country - I completely agree with
that. I don't use credit cards. I'm a "Cash is King" guy (my "credit history" is
seriously empty - bought cars and paid them off in six months or so and bought my
place because I didn't have the cash saved up).

Fannie and Freddie were undercapitalized, as were the credit default swaps.
The CRA did indeed help seed and drive the problem.

That's where the numbers don't back you up. CRA stuff was a pretty small chunk of
all that debt.

You just don't want to admit it because it is a pet special interest program that
buys your party votes in the pork wars.

You screech about "big bad corporations," but that is all the Fed is:
the realized dreams of big banking and credit interests. You support
policies that *cause* corporatization, not limit its damages,

I have to disagree with that but whatever. I have for a long time been saying that
I thought it was a bad thing to have so few corporations owning so much of any
industry, particularly banking. It boggles my mind that a huge investment bank gets
into trouble and the govt. jumps in to bail them out, saying that they're so big that
their collapse could be catastrophic, and then lets them be bought by an even bigger
corporation. What happens when that corporation ****s up?

--
tanx,
Howard

Abandon the Creeping Meatball!

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

ST wrote:
And McDonald's is responsible for all obesity??

You should know.

On Oct 15, 6:42*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

The whole thing is a pyramiding of credit off the Fed. *This is a
basic fact and it is always bound to crash, although all you partiers
are god damn drunk and stupid on credit when the cops show up. *Fannie
and Freddie were undercapitalized, as were the credit default swaps.
The CRA did indeed help seed and drive the problem. *You just don't
want to admit it because it is a pet special interest program that
buys your party votes in the pork wars.

You screech about "big bad corporations," but that is all the Fed is:
the realized dreams of big banking and credit interests. *You support
policies that *cause* corporatization, not limit its damages, but yet
you cry "evil big business." *A little cognitive dissonance goes a
long way. *Due to things *you* support, now they are "too big to
fail." *Next step: guvmint ownership of corporations because
"capitalism can't be trusted." *You are going to get what you want.


Dude,

Here is what I don't get. You argue that the Federal
Reserve system is fundamentally illegitimate and
bad economics besides. Why then do you give a
rat's ass about the CRA? It's a pimple on the ass of
bad credit, a tiny element of a vast federal monetary
system, and a mere fraction of the books of Fannie
and Freddie. When the whole system is, by your
lights, corrupt, why are you fixing on this one piece
of it for, as far as I can tell, not being correctly corrupt?
It's sort of like the old joke about "The food here is terrible!
And such small portions!"

It would be like Lafferty arguing that the pro cycling is
ethically bankrupt and should be ignored because of
rampant doping, and then spending weeks ranting
against Mike Creed's decision to use a fixed gear in the
nats TT. I mean, that actually happened, but I didn't
understand that either.

Ben

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
wrote:

Thanks for those links, but now do a google for vote fraud US
history, and you get 430,000 hits. The complaints come from both wings
and parties, depending on who thinks they got screwed.

Well, if that's your standard of evidence I can't help you.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
wrote:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...mostly-absent/
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...150477,00.html

These are about missing votes, which is quite different than the
supposed voter fraud by people pretending to be someone else or voting
multiple times you and the dittos claim is a problem and that picture
IDs would prevent.

This is heinous stuff but wont' be helped by the call for picture IDs
that will supress voting by the very poor.

Bill, you seem very confused in even raising this topic in reaction to
my comments about voter fraud and the fake voter bogeyman. It doesn't
make any sense. It makes about as much sense as a candidate saying
"I was in a POW, therefore my opponent is naive." Sorta related, but
not really.

PS - the problems in Florida were about voter supression, not fraud by
the voters.

There is evidence of voter supression being a problem. At least one
Republican operative is facing jailtime in New Hampshire right now.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...ne-Jamming.php

The head of the Republican party in Montana just resigned after a
repuke by a judge over partisan voter suppression efforts in that
state.
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2...al/znews03.txt

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:40:33 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

You argue that the Federal
Reserve system is fundamentally illegitimate and
bad economics besides. Why then do you give a
rat's ass about the CRA?

Racism.

On Oct 16, 5:53*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

There is evidence of voter supression being a problem. *At least one
Republican operative is facing jailtime in New Hampshire right now.http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...ne-Jamming.php

*The head of the Republican party in Montana just resigned after a
repuke by a judge over partisan voter suppression efforts in that
state.http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2...al/znews03.txt

Wether it's fraud by inclusion, or exclusion, it's fraud. It's just as
wrong to throw out ballots, as to file false ballots. A small
percentage can change an election in swing States. That's why the
system needs to be tightened up.
I don't have a preferred method of rigging. I've read a ton of
garbage on having to provide ID will disuade voters, and I don't agree
it's a big hurdle.
Voting requires some responsibility on the part of the citizen. Being
able to identify themselves to make our natrional decisions isn't too
much to ask. This idea that no one is personally responsible for
anything except evil corpoartions and business owners is garbage. We
all are.
Bill C

Here's some reading too that I found amusing, especially the list of
results:

http://tinyurl.com/3njthq

Americans Flunk Simple 3-Question Political Survey LiveScience Staff

LiveScience.com
Wed Oct 15, 5:25 PM ET

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
wrote:

Wether it's fraud by inclusion, or exclusion, it's fraud.

OK, but I was responding to your point about people voting more than
once and the idea of picture IDs helping with that. A bogeyman that
the right wing pulls out to attract certain people (like you) and try
to scare away voters (recent citizens, the very old who don't drive,
etc).

It's truly bizarre to try to support right-wing voter supression
tactics (picture ID requirement) with evidence of another form of
voter suppression (not counting mail in ballots). It's laughable.

and I don't agree it's a big hurdle.

If there is no evidence of any problem, despite massive attempts by
the justice department to find it, what is the possible purpose of
putting *any* hurdle in place? I know why the purpose of John McCain
and Rush Limbaugh on this sort of thing. What is your purpose?

It's odd to make public policy to solve problems that have been
demonstrated to_not_exist.

But more to my point, it's typical that you have latched onto a
right-wing talking point about a non-issue and now are trying to
defend it.