StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 01:18 PM) You mean data that doesn't answer your statement, or my question, and instead changed the subject? I'd hardly call that something. Where is the data supporting your initial contention? You made the claim that Fannie and Freddie bought enough of the subprime loans to cause the crisis. Provide support.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report that shot down this nonsense years ago

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2...agination=false

Except that data I've posted? I haven't seen anything from you.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 01:14 PM) You just changed the topic. You're clinging on to bad arguments that were put down four years ago.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 01:12 PM) That's total MBS's, not sub-prime.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insi...ie_mae_and.html

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 01:08 PM) Who was buying more? http://www.publicintegrity.org/2009/05/06/5554/subprime-25 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/5380...not-fannie.html Federal Reserve Board data show that: More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics. Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/5380...l#storylink=cpy

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 12:50 PM) And why were they taking that risk? Because they could just sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie. Freddie and Fannie were not anywhere near the primary buyer of those loans.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 12:22 PM) You've jumped the reasoning shark now. My statement, that the .com collapse was historic, was and is accurate no matter how you try to spin this. Define your metric for "historic"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 12:10 PM) I was JUST going to post that same response. That would be a pretty silly response to post because their critique of Ryan was accurate.

Ryan's 24 lies: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/...utes?page=0%2C0

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:56 AM) Bulls***. He caved and I was pissed at him for it. He had national support but probably cut some backroom deal in order to drop it. Yes, he caved to Republican demands. They were not going to allow anything but a full extension.

I still don't get why he or Biden didn't bring up McConnell's statement about their #1 priority being to make sure Obama was a 1-term president in response to Romney or Ryan trying to claim bipartisanship. Biden had a good opening for that last night.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:45 AM) So 2 of the 3 that Obama and his admin have continued while in office, and half the war costs (and expanded roles of new agencies like Homeland security) - totally not his doing! GMAFB. Obama would have liked to end a significant portion of the tax cuts but could not thanks to Republican opposition. However, you are still missing Biden's point. Ryan (and the rest of the Republicans) didn't become so concerned about the deficit until 1/20/09. Before that, they were happy to spend heavily while cutting revenues. They are being dishonest when they ignore their role in creating such huge deficit holes. Ryan was directly involved in those budgets and now wants to pretend like he's some deficit-hawk budget genius.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:43 AM) All Obama's buddies. He even dished out billion dollar tax payer bonuses to them. They paid too many bribes to fail. at least we're finally getting around to some prosecutions and lawsuits 4+ years after the fact!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:41 AM) But Fannie and Freddie bought up those terrible sub-prime mortgages and were allowed to continue to do so by the congressional Dems. All i'm saying is it's not exactly honest of Biden to point to Ryan and say "this is all on you guys." This was a problem that took decades to develop, even if the wars became a substantial cost later on. The spending enacted under Bush when Ryan was lead budget guy is their responsibility. The tax cuts, the unfunded wars, and Medicare are the largest sources of the deficit. That was Biden's point and he was absolutely correct. Fannie and Freddie were a minor role in the subprime market and outperformed their private-sector peers. They were, at worst, a minor factor in the problem. The problem was shady mortgage brokers knowingly making bad loans, investment bankers cobbling together poorly understood securities and leveraging themselves out on huge margins and absolutely no check on any of it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) Fannie and Freddie had their part in the housing crisis. But a lot of things had their part in the housing crisis. The issue wasn't sub-prime themselves, it was the belief that there was no national housing market, and that wallstreet was safe as long as they diversified s***ty loans in florida with s***ty loans in arizona. Fannie and Freddie were late to the game and got in at the tail-end of the bubble. Their loans defaulted significantly less frequently than the private market.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:36 AM) Or Barney Frank, Obama and other congressional Dems allowing the sub-prime crisis to happen: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html Non-FHA mortgage brokers and the derivatives market and ratings agencies were responsible, not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or the community reinvestment act. That crap was debunked years ago. It's sad that anyone would still believe that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:28 AM) No, but their "owning a home is a right" mantra directly contributed to the housing bubble bursting in the midst of those wars. I don't recall the Dems exactly fighting Bush on the prescription drug plan either. And both parties have failed miserably in keeping Wall Street in check so.... yes, both are to blame for the recession. You mean Bush and his "ownership society?" Clinton does deserve blame for signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall, though.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:28 AM) Um, seriously? The .com collapse was historic in nature. You fail at stock market. Yes, seriously. The stock market is not the economy, but even if it were a perfect measure, you'd still be wrong.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:26 AM) Bush inherited a .com bust, which was historic in nature, too. Bush's minor recession was not historic in nature.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:25 AM) Since when is combating piracy not part of the US national interest. It may have been one of the stupidest statements I have ever heard in my life. I can literally argue that everything that has ever happened or will happen is part of the US national interest. I was thinking Black Hawk Down in that regard. You could maybe toss Kosovo in there, too. We've stayed out of Darfur and we stayed out of Rwanda.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:20 AM) First, this is the case with just about every administration - you inherit certain problems and by timing alone you get credit for fixing certain problems. Second, Obama and the Dems act as if they had no role in it either. Both are to blame for the policies of the last 15 years. lol no, Democrats are not to blame for Bush's unfunded tax cuts and Medicare Advantage and lying us into the Iraq war.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:19 AM) Actually because of Bush. Now stop spinning your wheels, your bias is showing. Not that everyone isn't already aware of it. Iraqis forced the timeline and refused to extend it, not Bush.