I’m very hesitant to allow myself to get drawn into an argument with someone like you, David, because I always find it so exasperating. If you’ll allow a quick digression, I once had a cat that was very hard to potty-train. I find myself thinking of that cat everytime I argue with a liberal.
First off, between the two of us, if anyone is “parroting” anything, Dave, it’s you. That’s obvious. What is it with you people on the Left that brings about this arrogant and automatic assumption that any conservative that happens to point out the ridiculousness of your side has to be “parroting” someone? No Dave, I do think for myself. You should try it.
Second, exactly WTF is your argument? You start out blaming Bush, the Bush tax cuts, Bush’s “mismanagement,” etc. Then, when contested, you change course and start blaming Phil Gramm and his piece of legislation from 1999. What was it, the “GLB?” Wow, that’s pretty impressive arguing there Dave. You really pulled that one out of your ass.
But seriously, let me see if I’ve got this straight. Let me see if I can understand the David W Walters School of Argument. I’m going to guess that it’s a three-step process:
1: Make a completely inane and illogical comment. If possible, parrot Keith Olbermann. Wait to see if anybody notices. If so, proceed to step 2.
2: Go on idiotic left-wing website. Parse out a few statistics that might vaguely support new and improved argument. Completely re-formulate argument.
3: Answer opponents with new and improved, re-formulated argument. Be sure to throw in all the new stuff found while researching idiotic left-wing website. Accuse opponents of “not thinking for themselves.”
Is that about right Dave, or am I missing something?
I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers, Dave, but even if they are 100% accurate (which I doubt), there are a few glaringly obvious and important points which seem to be flying right over your head. I’m sure my list will not be complete, but here’s a couple:
1: I don’t think you provided any actual stats on the refinance vs finance stuff, but if it’s true that the majority of the sub-prime loans were re-financings, so what? Of what I said in my previous comment, what exactly does that counterpose? The sub-prime market exploded in the mid-90′s right after Clinton tweaked the Community Reinvestment Act (1977) to FORCE banks to provide risky mortgages. That is empirically indisputable. Where do you think the vast majority of foreclosures are coming from Dave? (I’ll go ahead and answer that. They’re almost entirely sub-prime.) What is it about this that you do not get?
2: OK, so are you using that statistic from 2006 to try to assert that somehow Fannie was not at the forefront of our economic meltdown of 2008? Was that your point Dave? (Because I’m really not sure.) If so, for Godsakes Dave, that’s just absurd. If you had read what I wrote precisely, I said that Fannie and Freddie “led” the way. Fannie, Freddie, and any other GSE that you want to throw in there. I didn’t say that they had a hand in every bad loan made, or even a majority. But these GSE’s were out there backing bad loans, to whatever extent, which incentivized the whole sub-prime system / market. The sub-prime numbers really exploded (as I said before) immediately after Clinton’s CRA revisions. And this was in 1996, not 1999. As you know, 1999 was the year of the dreaded “GLB.” I think you’ve lost your nexus Dave.
3: No offense Dave, but I think you really went off the deep-end when you started blaming the “GLB” (which was right after you blamed “GWB”) for our economic problems. Once again I’m having difficulty completely understanding your theory here but I think you are saying that the GLB enabled banks to enter into these risky mortgage agreements with unqualified borrowers so that they could, in turn, package large numbers of these bad mortgages and sell them as securities to hapless investors, some of which, ironically, were other banks. Darn those bankers. How did you put it Dave? We shouldn’t let banks “act like”, ummm, banks? Was that it? I don’t know Dave, what should they act like? Grocery stores? Aside from the fact that, as I said before, the sub-prime market was going full-swing at least two years before the GLB got out from under Gramm’s paperweight, bankers don’t enter into risky agreements voluntarily. You don’t think they would have made these very risky loans without Clinton’s new regs forcing them to, do you Dave? Come on, I know you are a liberal but…please.
I’m looking at this from a strictly fundamental and empirical standpoint. There is nothing theoretical about it. Why don’t you guys on the Left just go ahead and admit that, once again, you screwed everything all up. Really, the first step toward healing is to face the truth.
