Exhibit A: The Dow Jones Industrial Average. Generally considered one of the best indicators of overall economic health in this country. Now, to put in context just what a wet, steaming pile of bullshit it is that people are talking about Obama like (1) he's done anything wrong, (2) that there IS actually anything wrong, and (3) that [even though it isn't wrong] it's all his fault, I want to start back a bit, to when George W. Bush took office, just to remind everyone what a shitty stock market REALLY looks like. This is the DJIA from Inauguration day, 2001 to Election Day, 2004 (From Yahoo Finance):
Well, maybe the DJIA has a Liberal bias or something. I wonder what the S & P 500 looked like during Bush's first term:
Whoa. Down 13.16%. How the hell did that redneck get re-elected?! Is anyone goimng to seriously tell me that there's Liberal Bias in the media?! Where was it in 2004? Oh, and uh... How's things go the second time around?
Oh my God! DOWN 21.38%! Almost as bad as the DOW. And people say Obama's presiding over a bad economy?! Here was Shrub's eight year performance on the S & P:
Down 38.6%. Holy. Fucking. Shit. And since Obama took office?
And BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE! UP SEVENTY FOUR POINT TWO-EIGHT PERCENT! Oh, yeah: Let's get rid of this guy!
The NASDAQ tells the same story:
Down 28.03%. That in just his first term folks! Can someone PLEASE tell me how John Kerry didn't beat this ass-clown in a LANDSLIDE? Liberal Media, my hairy, unwashed ass!
Second time around:
Down another 19.2%. And they wonder why the lost. Must have been that Liberally biased STOCK MARKET.
Overall, our roughly fifth worst President of all time managed to take a whopping 46.88% out of the NASDAQ during his tenure. Remember: This was the guy who mocked Al Gore's legislation that created the Internet. OK, so how's the NASDAQ doing under Obama?
And... it's just easier for them to lie about it. None of the Conservatively biased Mainstream Media is going to break from the narrative that the Right's strength is economics, (note: it isn't. they have no strengths) nor call out Fox News for going above and beyond in the field of outright deceit and propaganda.
OK, so admittedly the Stock Market MIGHT not be the best measure. (That sure was FUN for me to go through though, let me tell you!) How about the GDP? Well, here's a chart:
It's from this article. My favorite part of which is the following line:
The average growth rate in private real quarterly GDP since 2000 has been 1.76%, so the private sector of the U.S. economy expanded in the first quarter of 2012 at twice the average rate over the last 12 yearsI keep hearing about how slow, and sluggish and disappointing that 2.2% rate is, but "double the rate of the last twelve years?!" Seems like we're doing just fine in that regard as well. BTW, you see those RED LINES? Well, the Conservative Toadies in the Mainstream media won't tell you this, but... those are REDUCTIONS in Government Spending. And contrary to what the Macroeconomic Failures who drew up the Paul Ryan Budget will tell you: That's a drag on the economy. So, if you think Obama should be doing more (meaning SPENDING more?) I'd agree with you 100%. But that criticism sure as hell isn't a reason to vote Republican! And if you think he should cut more? Then you're either a Billionaire or an idiot who doesn't understand how economics works and will be out a job sooner than he thinks.
Speaking of which, unemployment is becoming so much NOT A PROBLEM, that Fox News has gone so far as to allege a conspiracy over the numbers! Sarah Palin even questioned their accuracy! Eric Bolling again accused the BLS of being partisan! Imagine the gall it takes, for a guy on FOX NEWS to accuse the BLS of partisan bias! There should have been a quantum singularity forming in his crotch due to the gravity created by his massively HUGE BALLS.
Here's an unemployment chart that ought to get Obama re-elected:
Wow. Again what do we see? Things getting worse and worse and worse under Bush... And things getting better and better and batter, and the staying in the green under Obama.
Now, I'm going to look at energy and gas prices next, and I've never been shy about delving into social issues myself, but on a purely economic basis? Everything got worse under Bush, and everything has gotten better under Obama. That not my opinion: That's what the data says. It's not a "liberal talking point" either: It's MATH.
If anyone needs a quick reference here you go:
As of 4/29/2012:
DJIA:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -5.13%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -24.23%
Under Obama: UP, 66.4%
S&P 500:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -13.16%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -38.6%
Under Obama: UP, 74.28%
NASDAQ:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -28.03%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -46.88%
Under Obama: UP, 113.05%
I'm still stunned by this. Can you imagine what they'd be saying about Obama's economy if his markets had George Bush's returns? Oh, yeah, but Bush gets re-elected after net first-term losses, and the so-called 'Liberal' media media keeps up the narrative that Republicans know their asses from their elbows when it comes to the economy.
One final note, regarding the millions of people still trying to find work. In no way is my post here implying that your plight is not real. You're out of work. And no amount of economic data is going to put food on your table. (Of course... the Republicans want to kill anything that WILL do that as well.) The point here is WHY. WHY are there are so many unemployed people? And WHO, WHO is going to make things better and who will make them worst? History says the Republicans will make it worse. They're the ones who MADE IT BAD in the first place. And AUSTERITY won't fix anything. Obama has been embracing Austerity at an astounding rate, mainly to appease the Right, and it is the number one thing HAMPERING our economic recovery. The Right will only give you more of he only thing Obama actually IS doing wrong economically. And that's not my opinion, or mere conjecture. I KNOW this because they've promised as much. That's what massive SPENDING CUTS will do folks: Kill the economy. DO NOT give the Republicans this chance!
Republicans suck.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait to hear what William has to say!!
I'm betting on either another peripheral irrelvancy, or a repetition of the msm's narritive, despite what teh data says, while possibly making a sarcastic yet emotional appeal. ;)
Delete" Oh, yeah, but Bush gets re-elected after net first-term losses, and the so-called 'Liberal' media media keeps up the narrative that Republicans know their asses from their elbows when it comes to the economy."
DeleteBush won re-election for the same reason Obama will win his ... NO COMPETITION! But, you hold onto your reasons for his victory like you hold on to fudging numbers to give credence to the whines made about Bush's tenure.
Still waiting for those unemployment numbers. You should bring some helpful stats like this one:
How many months was unemployment ABOVE 7% during the Bush presidency?
How many months has unemployment been BELOW 8% during the Obama presidency?
Answer to 1st question: 2 months Bush had an unemployment rate above 7%. Both those months came AFTER Obama had won the election and the nations boss's new who the new guy would be.
Answer to 2nd question: 0 months has the unemployment rate been below 8% while Obama has been president.
Good to see you have your blame game going at full speed. I'll bet you will blame Bush for the high unemployment numbers brought by Obama. No wonder so many right-wingers don't trust supposed facts brought by liberals. It's because they can't be trusted to bring factual facts, just the opinionated type.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
I just love me some good graphs! Nice data dump!
ReplyDeleteThanks. And welcome!
DeleteIf you're going to be dealing with gas prices, I just wrote a take-down of a less-than-sharp columnist at a small local paper the other day on that very subject:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.catwalkchatt.com/view/full_story/18368691/article-Column-by-Jeff-O-Bryant--The-hope-for-change-in-2012?instance=secondary_stories_left_column
(The comments on the site are arranged backwards, so after the column itself, you have to start at the bottom and work your way up--some of his toadies chimed in, and had to be put in their place, as well.)
The scope of Obama's economic record won't be known until the present growth period ends (which, hopefully, won't be for a few more years). I would say, though, that your piece doesn't really make any case for the Obama, as its title suggests. It just makes a case against the Republicans. There's absolutely no reason to support the Obama. There is every reason not to support the Republicans. That's a distinction worth making.
LOL - I KNEW you were going to say that!
DeleteBut until I have a viable, electable alternative (one that's not just going to be another Ralph "I'm going to give the Presidency to George W. Bush" Nader) as far as I'm concerned, THIS YEAR, "not supporting Republicans" = "supporting Obama and the Democrats."
Now, you're right about the fact that we won't know for sure how his economic record will TRULY turn out for quite some time. I went with what data I had. But rememeber: Bush got re-elected with stock market incides all DOWN, -5%, -13% and -25%, whilst right now, since Obama took office, those same indicies are UP 66%, 74% and 113%, and yet somehow the story is STILL about how BAD things are. His economic record? Is GOOD. And it would be BETTER if his FISCAL record wasn't so... well, GOOD. (From the Conservatve's standpoint, anyway.) From the POV of the Economy? I AM happy with Obama. From the POV of the Deficit (which is projected to shrink for the third straight year) I'm also happy with Obama. I'm happy with the way the Auto Bailout worked out, I'm happy with how the stimulus worked, unemployment is falling, GDP is up, real estate is starting to recover... His economic record? Is one of the best in modern history, despite his surpsingly enthusiastic embrace of austerity and spending cuts. And yet what's the story?
"These hard economic times."
and
"The deficit, due to all this spending."
Meh. There are plenty of reasons NOT to support Obama, as you've wirtten about many times, and which I've dabbled in, though cannot fully embrace for lack of a preferable alternative, but his Economic record? Ain't one of them.
There are MANY GOOD REASONS not to like Obama, and I've yet to hear the Right ever name a SINGLE ONE OF THEM! In fact, so many of the reasons you yourself have brought up, while perfectly legitimate and important, are (as you know) hardly reasons to vote Republican!
And really, I'm standing up for the TRUTH here, as much as for Obama. And I'm not trying to make anyone LIKE him. I'd like them to VOTE for him, yes, but by all means, let's keep up the heat on both Obama and the Democrats. By I can't abide the thought of more Republicans, or of a Presdient Romney (though far and away the best guy they had) even given Obama's failings. But let's not let the media keep telling people how bad thigns are. That's ridiculous. They were singing W's praises at this point in 2004, despite stock market LOSSES (and fairly high unemplyment, IIRC).
And given the choice of four more years of THIS, or four years of Republican austerity? As much as I'd LOVE to see them fuck up the economy, AGAIN, and give us back the same opportunity we had in 2008, AGAIN, I just don't think we can afford it.
I know I can't.
So: Give me the Keynsian, even the Pseudo-Keynsian-Lite, EVERY TIME.
(And I'll be sure to check out that article before posting!
Thanks!)
"They were singing W's praises at this point in 2004, despite stock market LOSSES (and fairly high unemplyment, IIRC). "
DeleteHmm, maybe you read different news articles than everyone else. What was the Dow at under Bush in April of 2004? What was the unemployment under Bush in April of 2004?
A fair question. I'll run the numbers tonight.
Delete"I’ll have to find more detailed unemployment data. It was ~5.3% ON AVERAGE under Bush, but it also went from 4% to 7.8% over his tenure."
DeleteYes, you should check out those unemployment numbers. And, really, the DOW? Bush takes an economy that was decimated by the 9/11 attacks (you remember them?) and created a recovery.
If you'll notice the huge losses (at the end of his terms) coincidently timed closely with the bursting of the housing market. Do you remember who was in charge of FreddieMac? Do you remember who signed the law forcing banks to loan to unqualified buyers?
Hmmm, I remember, but I don't live in denial. Do you think the housing market failure has anything to do with our economy? And, yes, check on those gas prices. I'd like to see what you come up with.
You might "remember" some trival RW talking points, but you lack any real understanding of things.
Delete"Do you remember who was in charge of FreddieMac?"
Up until the collapse in September of 2008, it was Richard Syron. If you mean "who was the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee", it was Republican Mike Oxley until January of 2007, when Barney Frank took over. But of course, I KNOW you're not foolish enough to suggest that the entire financial crisis is do to what Domcrats did between 2007 and 2008, because you asked...
"Do you remember who signed the law forcing banks to loan to unqualified buyers?"
THERE IS NO SUCH LAW. If you're refering to the Community Reinvestment Act, (originally singed in 1977,) then you're just repeating Right Wing lies. The FACT of the matter is that ~80% of sub-prime loans at the time had been issued by INVESTMENT BANKS, which aren't governned by the CRA. And institutions that DID fall under the CRA's jurisdiction had LOWER rates of foreclosure. That whole "forcing banks to loan to unqualified buyers" thing? Is RW, partisan, political BULLSHIT. No serious analyst believes the CRA had anything to do with the meltdown, and there is no tangible evidence to show that it did. Look it up. You've been LIED to. And you are continuing to be LIED to. It's about time you stopped living in denial about that.
Banks made bad loans because they figured out a way to profit off of them with little risk to themselves. Namely: loan someone else's money, by bundling and securitizing many different loans, and finding a credit ratings agency willing to slap a "AAA" rating on in (which was also BULLSHIT, though they were all willing to play ball, for the right price) so you can sell of shares of the security at better than it's true market value. They made small profits, with no risk to themselves, and so they made SHITLOADS of thse loans. They couldn't loan that money out fast enough! NO ONE "forced" their hand! That's utter nonsense. And no banks complained about BEFORE the crisis! I wonder why THAT was...? Oh, yeah: because it was PROFITABLE. RECKLESS, yes, but profitable. Their greed and the incompetence (or fraud) of the ratings agencies was what caused the crisis.
And as long as real estate kept going up? It wouldn't be a problem. Of course, the slightest hiccup? And it becomes a world wide catastrophe.
So why don't you tell me: Who WROTE the legislation repealing the Glass-Stegal Act, who's repeal prevented the Governemnt from regulating these bubble-inflating investment banks? Three guys named Gramm (R), Leach (R) and Bliley (R). Sure, Clinton SIGNED it, but we've been over this before: Clinton made MANY legislative mistakes, all of them involving him signing REPUBLICAN written legislation. (NAFTA, DADT, DOMA, '96 Telecom, and... Gramm-Leach-Bliley!) He's no Liberal and I'm no Democrat.
And at the end of the day, it remains the Libertarian myth of deregulation that caused the credit crisis. The Democrats tried to fix it, but it was too little too late. The Frank-Dodd act, however, does continue to do a lot of good, even as the financial sector fights it in court, the bastards.
Oh, I almost forgot:
Delete"And, really, the DOW?"
AND the S&P, AND the Nadaq...
"Bush takes an economy that was decimated by the 9/11 attacks (you remember them?) and created a recovery."
Funny - I don't see that in the stock market, nor in his abysmal first-term job-creation numbers. Where's this BIG RECOVERY you speak of? Why aren't the economic indicators playing ball, huh?
"If you'll notice the huge losses (at the end of his terms) coincidently timed closely with the bursting of the housing market."
Yes, but I also notice small losses going into to the 2004 election campaign, as opposed to MINDBOGGLINGLY HUGE GAINS during Obama's first term - once in which thigns are supposedly terrible. Well... if a 66-113% GAIN in the three major stock market indices is evidence of a BAD economy, what do you call a 5-28% LOSS?!
And please read the article I linked to (http://economyinperspective.com/jobs) before saying anything else about Bush's, or the Republican's, job #'s or overall economic record. You have to deal with the abysmal historical FACTS before any of us are going to be impressed by your ability to repeat the Republican narritive.
Oh yeah, and the 9/11 attacks?
Read the commission report. Bush's incoming intel team didn't want to hear ANYTHING from the outgoing Clinton team. They ignored their warnings and bungled a LOT of additonal evidence leading up to the attacks.
Now any suggestion that they intentionally let it happen? That's psycho talk. But Bush's incopmpetence and the incompetence of his team are to blame. Condi Rice was National Security Adviser during the worst attack on our homeland in half a century, and arguably EVER. 9/11 WAS her FAILURE, the failure of the entire Bush team.
And Rudy Guliani has plenty of blood on his hands as well, for (1) not addressing the radio problems that were identified in 1993, and (2) Putting his emergeny management HQ in NYC's #1 target, against the advise of experts.
There are no Republican heroes from 9/11 my friend. Just a bunch of tough-talking, flag-waving blowhards who did almost everything wrong.
And this is now WAAY off topic. My fault, fine. But let agree to keep this brief, yes? If you want the last word regarding 9/11, or anything else, you can have it. I'm game to keep going regarding economics, however.
"Banks made bad loans because they figured out a way to profit off of them with little risk to themselves."
DeleteYeah, they were told to do that by the government and the laws that Clinton created to force them to do that.
"So why don't you tell me: Who WROTE the legislation repealing the Glass-Stegal Act, who's repeal prevented the Governemnt from regulating these bubble-inflating investment banks? "
You're asking me who wrote the legislation designed to stop a future meltdown that was created by laws forcing banks to give loans to unqualified buyers while denying those laws even existed?
"Banks made bad loans because they figured out a way to profit off of them with little risk to themselves."
Yeah they found low qualified buyers who the government told them to loan to or risk future government backing.
Finally, I'm glad you think 9/11 had no effect on our economy. And you think republicans have a problem with believing lies told by their leaders. I'll let you believe all the lies you want.
"Bush's incoming intel team didn't want to hear ANYTHING from the outgoing Clinton team. "
Well, I guess when Clinton wouldn't even go after Bin Laden for fear of hurting a couple innocent bystanders, why would Bush think Clinton was serious about the danger of OBL? Hell, even Clinton didn't think he was dangerous enough to go after?
This talk about the CRA is just another example of why this clown is a complete waste of time, Eddie. He's a perfect example of everything that's wrong with the right these days. If something doesn't appear in some fascist publication (and, in the past, he has cited literal fascist publications, like those of the John Birch Society), it isn't real. Here, you offered real numbers on the CRA, and the fact--not the suggestion, not the allegation, not the implication, but the fact--that the CRA played no significant role in the economic collapse, and he just pretends as if it doesn't exist, just as he did months ago when I pointed out those same facts to him here.
Delete"William" doesn't care about the truth, so one must approach such matters in a language he understands. Here's an item offering even more specific numbers on this subject from the Wall Street Journal editorial page:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/02/16/feds-duke-community-reinvestment-act-not-to-blame-for-crisis/
That's a source of such noxious reactionary sentiment that its creators would probably demand a "fair hearing" for people who wanted to put Jews in ovens. Will this be right-wing enough for "William"? I just can't wait to find out.
Here's a study by Traiger & Hinckley (these days, Hinckley & Heisenberg), a big-shot right-wing Fifth Avenue law firm specializing in legal counsel for investment banks on regulatory matters (it has the numbers you were referencing earlier, Eddie):
Deletehttp://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
"Funny - I don't see that in the stock market, nor in his abysmal first-term job-creation numbers. Where's this BIG RECOVERY you speak of? Why aren't the economic indicators playing ball, huh?"
DeleteRight there in those stats you brought. When was the last time the DOW (you're preferred indicator) hit 14000? What happened after that? Then you bring the denials of the effect that the CRA has (had) on our economy. That's good, real good.
Now about the unemployment? The job creation during his first term shows up during his second term. He took unemployment of 6.3% (June 03) to 4.4% and it stayed below 5% for almost the entire time of his second term. That is job creation. What has Obama done? Took unemployment to 10%.
Bring those numbers you say are so terrible. What month did Bush have unemployment at 10% ? I don't seem to remember ANY month Bush had an unemployment rate above 7.5%. Do you have any data that shows unemployment that high during an entire month of Bush?? Yet, Obama has NEVER had an unemployment rate below 8.2% . And, even that month is the last month you have data for. Oh, wait, you didn't bring any unemployment data or you would have already known that.
But, through a successful DOW and low unemployment and low gas prices, you consider Bush a massive failure? Sounds like you are politically motivated for that reasoning. Because the numbers (even the fudged ones you used) don't support that stance.
Here's a statement from wikipedia about the CRA: "During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act."
DeleteLooks like Mr. Niskanen called it quite correctly. He had a concern the banks would end up operating at a loss (because of the CRA laws) and his long term worry about bank failures came true. Too bad liberals are so blind that didn't see that possibility. Too bad they didn't listen to the experts. But, at least some are still living in denial over what the CRA did to the US economy. And good thing there are still so many liberals who refuse to acknowledge the damage done was caused by democratic ideals. That sure makes it easier to sleep at night knowing so many liberals are proud to have supported the CRA as it raped the US economy. Keep up the classic liberal mantra: Blame Bush!!
How was he "RIGHT" when EIGHTY PERCENT of sub-prime loans were issued by banks NOT GOVERED by the CRA, and the lains issued by the banks that WERE had LOWER DEFUALT rates?! And, of course, the Banks WERE NOT opperating at losses! They were CHEATING, yes, but the biggest frauds were those on the EIGHTY PERCENTY side - that had the worst defualt rate. Do you understand ANY facts, AT ALL, in CONTEXT?!
DeleteA guy predicts dister and there's (eventually) a disater. Wow. Except that you are forcing the prediction, shoehorning it, to fit the furture circumstances, irregardless of the facts and what actually happened!
You must be a great fan of Nostradamus as well.
When you bundle the prime loans and sub-prime loans into the same package, what difference does it make WHO made the loan?
DeleteAnd, why is it important to have poor people being able to claim they can't afford their mortgage along with all the rich people? That's what the CRA did. It forced more loans to unqualified buyers. How those loans got bought and sold by other banks isn't my issue. Those bad loans should not have been made to begin with.
"No serious analyst believes the CRA had anything to do with the meltdown, and there is no tangible evidence to show that it did. Look it up."
DeleteThere is an article in today's SF Chronicle business section about the TARP program.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/09/BUH41OENLC.DTL
If you get a chance to read it and want to comment on those banks (small/medium) that have not been able to pay TARP money back after their problems were caused by bad loans that were mandated by the CRA. Maybe you think half the banks having paid back the money is good enough but it turns out that many the smaller local banks are still in trouble. That must be the part of the TARP success's that you didn't want to mention.
And, like I said, banks being required to loan to unqualified borrowers (by the CRA) were just as much the cause/effect of the housing meltdown as anything you've mentioned. Although you refuse to admit the CRA had anything to do with the meltdown.
The remaining banks still on the TARP program are evidence enough to show the CRA did not work the way you claim it to have worked.
P.S. Still waiting on a comment about your false/misleading 80% number you used.
Oh, so I suppose this makes it OK for Obama to take away all our guns?
ReplyDeleteI just LOVE exposing liberal hypocracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Signed,
Jack Strawman
ROTFLMAO. It's a good thing you signed your work, Anon, becuase I was seriously going to ask you if you were being sarcastic or were just stupid. (And as it's the former, it's absolutely BRILLIANT! I love it!)
DeleteYou liberals sit and cry that "it's all Bush's fault!"
DeleteWell, Obammer has had nearly FOUR WHOLE YEARS to spend his way into prosperity and it hasn't happened.
So don't you think it's time to stop blaming the guy from three years ago for the mess we're in now?
Oh, BTW, it was CARTER'S policies from LAST CENTURY that screwed everything up. ( Even 8 years of Reagan and 12 years of two different George Bushes couldn't straighten this out - THAT'S how bad CARTER messed us up!)
I can make this point because I am a patriot and you're not.
Signed,
Jack Strawman.
PS - Hypocrite!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"but the fact--that the CRA played no significant role in the economic collapse" AND "and he just pretends as if it doesn't exist, just as he did months ago when I pointed out those same facts to him here."
ReplyDeleteBut, when a left-winger exhibits such delusional intelligence it is considered genius?
How can you say the CRA had "no significant role" in the housing market collapse when it was the very reason it happened to begin with? Then (while complaining about links I use) you bring 2 blogs to support your theory that stupid democratic ideas failed our economy but do not deserve the blame they get. Like a true liberal, you ignore the mistake and blame any result of that mistake on others.
Eddie: "So why don't you tell me: Who WROTE the legislation repealing the Glass-Stegal Act, who's repeal prevented the Governemnt from regulating these bubble-inflating investment banks? "
ReplyDeleteWilliam: "You're asking me who wrote the legislation designed to stop a future meltdown that was created by laws forcing banks to give loans to unqualified buyers while denying those laws even existed?"
No, William, Eddie was asking you who wrote the legislation repealing Glass-Steagall. And, as usual, you won't give an honest, real-world answer, but reframe the question into some entirely imaginary mish-mash. Even if the repeal had been designed to prevent a meltdown, which it was not, it was a total failure, wouldn't you say? Oh, silly me. Of course you wouldn't. The real world isn't something you're interested in. As Classic Liberal noted above, you're not bringing anything to the discussion but regurgitated and debunked right wing cow pies.
"As Classic Liberal noted above, you're not bringing anything to the discussion but regurgitated and debunked right wing cow pies."
DeleteNothing has been "debunked". Left-wingers just simply refuse to accept facts as they are, they would rather make them up as they need and call them facts until somebody believes them.
You're a brainless fucking clown who can't--or won't--think for himself. About anything. All you do is parrot the likes of Limbaugh and Fox News and the John Birch Society, along with their ill-intentions. You and your kind have perpetuated every mass horror this world has ever seen. You are a burden to your country and to your entire species.
DeleteEddie says there is no law that required banks to loan to unqualified borrowers in the CRA. But, he and you both know that the CRA says that the banks could lose federal 'assistance' if they did not accept those risky loans from those unqualified borrowers.
DeleteNow, which bank is going to risk losing federal assistance over loans they know another company will buy and aquire that risk? Was it the original bank that risked on that risky loan to an unqualified borrower? No, it was somebody else, and their failure led to the collapse. The CRA simply caused the original loan bank to make more of those risky loans that got bought up by others seeking to make more profits. But they lost.
Honestly, just put your tin-foil hat back on and shut the fuck up.
DeleteThat's the best you can do? I didn't think you liberals could honestly argue that your prized CRA didn't cause the housing meltdown. But maybe you'll grow up and actually address the concerns that are being discussed. But I doubt it ... you are, after-all, a liberal.
DeleteWilliam, you're wrong, as usual, because you fail to address any of the relevant FACTS: EIGHTY-PERCENT of sub-prime loans were issued by banks NOT GOVERNED BY THE CRA. So who are these banks who are risking federal funds? The ones who issued just TWENTY PERCENTY?! And who's loans had a LOWER DEFAULT RATE then the Banks NOT governed by the CRA?
DeleteIs that the best YOU can do? Becuase, if it is, you really suck at this.
Gee, Eddie, do you think I could get away with saying this: "I KNOW that my positions aren't suported by evidence! I KNOW that they'r counterproductive and wrong! I just don't care. They're an EMOTIONAL stance, and not ones that I can let go of." ? Would you be getting ready to call me a 'bigot' right about now? Or do you want to stick to "idiot"? You liberals have so many cute names you call everyone else when you can't discuss like an adult.
Delete"But, he and you both know that the CRA says that the banks could lose federal 'assistance' if they did not accept those risky loans from those unqualified borrowers."
DeleteMaybe, Eddie, you would like to address this concern? Are you going to deny that is in the CRA as delivered by Clinton? Well ... are you?
As for your "FACTS: EIGHTY-PERCENT...". Why don't you bring that fact? From what I read, there was only 50% (FIFTY-PERCENT) not covered by the CRA, while the other 30% (THIRTY-PERCENT) you claim as fact were IN FACT partially covered by the CRA. So, your FACTS aren't factual. Care to bring some proof of your FACTS?
More evidence that liberals don't use facts, but rather stick with opinion.
Eddie, when you get done "ROTFLMAO" can you address my concern about you using inacurate information to further your point? Why have you ignored my requests for you to clarify that "EIGHTY PERCENT" statement you made? You seem honest enough to address my many other concerns, why are you ignoring this one?
DeleteYou may not accept this link, since it is from an ultra-right-wing media outlet: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/tarp-profit-a-myth_n_1450363.html
Delete"Contrary to the Obama administration's claims, the bailouts of the financial and auto industries have not turned a profit for the U.S. government and may never turn a profit, according to a grim new assessment by the bailout's watchdog."
But, you aren't interested in truth in media, are you? As evidenced by your lack of verification of your previous lies about TARP and CRA and abstinence and Obama foreign policy and .....
Don't worry, Eddie, I understand you running away from these arguments. When lies and misinformation are all you got, then you need to fly with what got you there, right? Why let little things like facts and truth get in the way of your anti-conservative/Bush/republican rants?
A month later and Eddie still refuses to provide the "facts" of his "EIGHTY PERCENT" claim. I wonder if NOT actually being facts has anything to do with that behavior. Yes, I think so. Article after article I've been pointing out misinformation and lies brought by Eddie and article after article he refuses to stand up for his misinformation and lies.
DeleteI see you have time to spew your hatred of right-wingers at Mediamatters, but you refuse to defend your statements at your own site? Good blog you got going.
Uh, no, as one of your leading lights observed, during the Bush Administration, we're in the fact-based community. You're getting weaker and weaker, William, just restating old canards as if repetition will make them true. BTW, I got back to the "I'll make this easy," thread late (191 and 2), but I did leave a soul-test there for you. Don't know if you read and ignored it or not, but it's still waiting for you to pick it up.
ReplyDeleteThe reality-based community. I just started a series of my own on verminous cretins like "William." I don't know how frequently I'll work on it, or how long it will run, but I've believed, for years, that it's the most important issue facing the U.S. It's a constantly recurring theme in my writings on political and social issues. "William" is the perfect unquestioning fascist follower. Not the constantly-thrown-around empty curse "fascism" so often found in our discourse, but the real thing.
Delete"verminous cretins"
DeleteWow, you even sound like Michael Savage and use the same words he uses. You aren't much of a liberal if you copy the verbiage used by Michael Savage to make your points. I expect nothing less from you though. So, keep up the good works.
That is the one thing we agree on, William. Dehumanizing the opponent in rhetoric is often the prelude to more dangerous actions, and I object to ANYONE using the term vermin for human beings.
DeleteSome people sacrifice their right to be treated politely. That one did so a long time ago.
Delete"Dehumanizing the opponent in rhetoric is often the prelude to more dangerous actions"
DeleteWell, Conchobhar, he is a liberal, so I expect dangerous actions from him. He probably is a Occupy member, too. Everyone knows their methods ... classic liberalism. Actually, I've noticed few liberals can discuss any topic without using the "dehumanizing" rhetoric. I do it a bit myself, but liberals are experts at it and resort to it quicker than anyone else.
CL: I agree that William deserves no polite treatment. However, 'vermin' is a word that, in the 30's, and again in the '90's, both in Europe and Africa, preceded widespread tribal slaughter.
DeleteIt's true the more dangerous actions I referred to have come, in the main, from super-nationalistic and xenophobic quarters, i.e. the right. No one, after listening to Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, etc. has gone out with a gun looking to kill people, as Fox listeners and O'Reily fans have done. But I still object to any group being dehumanized in that way.
You, however, William, have time and again, most recently in the above post, proved yourself to be a completely programmed little brown shirt.
"No one, after listening to Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, etc. has gone out with a gun looking to kill people, as Fox listeners and O'Reily fans have done."
DeleteYou DO realize that the odds of someone listening to any of the liberals you mentioned even having enough intelligence to USE a gun, let alone point it at someone other than themselves are pretty high.
Are people even able to listen to any of those you mentioned? Or are all of them now on TV? They're probably all on cable. The general public doesn't want anything to do with left-wing radio so aren't all of them relegated to small markets and whining about how unfair it is?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"You DO realize that the odds of someone listening to any of the liberals you mentioned even having enough intelligence to USE a gun, let alone point it at someone other than themselves are pretty high."
ReplyDeleteWhat I "DO realize" that is that you think your prejudices are facts, and that you are, therefore, a weak-minded dolt. And THIS liberal shot expert in the Army, and still hits whatever he aims at, with firearm, bow, or hockey stick. And speaking of hockey sticks, shove one...sideways.
Hoωdy! Quick question thаt's completely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My blog looks weird when viewing from my iphone 4. I'm trying tο find а thеme or plugin that might be able to rеsolve thiѕ problem.
ReplyDeleteIf you have any suggestions, please share.
With thanks!
Fеel free to ѕurf to mу web-sitе: link building service
Sad to see such a lack of real truth and understanding. BUSH left us bleeding nearly a million jobs a month. The damage of putting two massive wars on credit card never to be paid. Small minds cannot comprehend that in order to crash the economy (so the Bilderbegers, the Grove boys and their NWO can move forward in its quest for hegemony and total domination by getting to purchase everything at a fraction of the cost -- the ultra rich never suffer) moving to Bush Sr.'s vision of the New World Order. Go back to sleep and continue to defend the oligarchy because if you make under a quarter million a year you may need medication to straighten our your broken logic.
ReplyDelete