Fun with Falling Oil Hypocrisy!!

Message boards : Politics : Fun with Falling Oil Hypocrisy!!
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 822513 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 3:47:04 UTC
Last modified: 24 Oct 2008, 3:47:56 UTC

Hey, in the interest of consistency and saving your credibility, shouldn't all of you that were crowing about how it's Dubya's fault that oil prices were so high be giving him all the credit for cutting oil prices in half?

I mean, it's Dubya, right? That how world market prices are determined, Dubya just does it?

So you should all be thanking him now, right?
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 822513 · Report as offensive
Profile Uli
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 00
Posts: 10923
Credit: 5,996,015
RAC: 1
Germany
Message 822520 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 4:07:35 UTC

No, I think it is all the other modes of transportation that I see here, that people have rediscovered.
Pluto will always be a planet to me.

Seti Ambassador
Not to late to order an Anni Shirt
ID: 822520 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51464
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 822541 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 4:52:23 UTC

Oh, come on......
You all know about the old conspiracy that oil prices always fall before an election, so as to favor the party in power........LOL.
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 822541 · Report as offensive
Profile Fuzzy Hollynoodles
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 9659
Credit: 251,998
RAC: 0
Message 822670 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 13:36:33 UTC - in response to Message 822513.  

Hey, in the interest of consistency and saving your credibility, shouldn't all of you that were crowing about how it's Dubya's fault that oil prices were so high be giving him all the credit for cutting oil prices in half?

I mean, it's Dubya, right? That how world market prices are determined, Dubya just does it?

So you should all be thanking him now, right?


LOL Good one, Rush. ;-D



"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

ID: 822670 · Report as offensive
fpiaw

Send message
Joined: 29 Dec 99
Posts: 236
Credit: 1,203,409
RAC: 0
United States
Message 822678 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 14:06:14 UTC - in response to Message 822513.  

You can make a point for what you said. However, I don't give W credit for the rise or fall. He is just not that smart ... nor am I. What I do give W credit for is doing nothing. His policy of no regulation let home and oil vales go 100's of percent above what they really can be. The danger of that is .... Now opec and banks want those values back. Below is an example.

Opec wants higher values: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/10/24/oil.output.opec/?iref=mpstoryview ... but the point is that oil is just at a 17 month low ... not an 80 year low, not even what it was at 2 years ago and they are acting as if prices have to go up. This I can blame on W and his lack of regulation.

But opec is not alone, a lot of Americans want housing values to go back up 100 or even 200 thousand for home that is just not worth it. This damages the value of the dollar and of America. Even in the last debate McCain said values have to go up, that is just wrong. Even if my guy (obama) says that I will still think it is wrong. The value of anything (home, oil, whatever) must be based on what can be afforded, what the standard of living can pay for. And on a non-industry based service and retail economy that is nothing.

Chris.


Hey, in the interest of consistency and saving your credibility, shouldn't all of you that were crowing about how it's Dubya's fault that oil prices were so high be giving him all the credit for cutting oil prices in half?

I mean, it's Dubya, right? That how world market prices are determined, Dubya just does it?

So you should all be thanking him now, right?


ID: 822678 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 822680 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 14:08:27 UTC

Since Rush is a Brit he should understand the underhandedness of Politics. This seems to be another ploy to win an election. BTW it's not working this time. The W has screwed the pooch on a grand scale.

Not to be a conspiracy nutbag but this Regime has made it a policy to scare people and then state they are the only cure for our fears. Any average person would have seen that the price of oil skyrocketing was going to screw up the economy. Since virtually every item in a store is delivered by a vehicle that uses gas or Diesel fuel, food included. It only makes sense that people would have to cut back all their spending to just afford the food they eat. Since 70+% of the US economy is reliant on purchases and not manufacturing as it was prior to the NAFTA and other Free trade agreements that dropped jobs from America to 3rd world countries. Prices for formerly american made product didnt drop when these jobs left. Just look at Stanley Tools. They were once proud American made company. Now they make everything in Taiwan. So much for this tangent.

The reality is that since we don't really make anything in America anymore we are in deep trouble anytime we have a countrywide fuel cost increase. If you are working and you have a choice of eating and buying a new Ipod, most would decide they need to eat.

I won't thank W. I will blame him for the problems this country is in right now and for the next few years of the new President.

For someone to make so many economic and political mistakes while having a BS in History and a MA in Business is mind boggling. Perhaps its that he was a frat boy with a gentlemans C average at Yale and Daddy Bush's ability to pull strings to get a C student into Harvards Business school.

Get that a C student made it into Harvard. How does that happen? Money


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 822680 · Report as offensive
Profile Fuzzy Hollynoodles
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 9659
Credit: 251,998
RAC: 0
Message 822745 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 16:14:08 UTC - in response to Message 822680.  

Since Rush is a Brit he should understand the underhandedness of Politics. ...


Uhm no.

Rush is a US citizen, born and raised in the US of A.

He understands politics very well...



"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

ID: 822745 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 822763 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 16:25:26 UTC - in response to Message 822678.  
Last modified: 24 Oct 2008, 16:28:03 UTC

You can make a point for what you said. However, I don't give W credit for the rise or fall. He is just not that smart ... nor am I. What I do give W credit for is doing nothing.

Which is exactly what the gov't should have been doing all along. Nothing. Not Dubya, not Clinton, not Bush41, not Reagan, not Carter, not Ford, none of them, all the way back.

His policy of no regulation let home and oil vales go 100's of percent above what they really can be. The danger of that is .... Now opec and banks want those values back. Below is an example.

In reality, gov't put direct pressure on lenders to loan money to those that could not repay it. Then, gov't put pressure on Fannie, Freddie, et cetera, to guarantee loans that they should not have.

That is just more gov't intervention, and causes the bubbles, causes them to burst, and causes the recovery to be much worse than it would have been.

Opec wants higher values: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/10/24/oil.output.opec/?iref=mpstoryview ... but the point is that oil is just at a 17 month low ... not an 80 year low, not even what it was at 2 years ago and they are acting as if prices have to go up. This I can blame on W and his lack of regulation.

Then you know nothing about economics.

OPEC ALWAYS wants higher prices. And yet, even with the amount of control they have, the price has fallen by 1/2. Which means, as it always has, that even the mighty OPEC cannot control oil prices. There are SIGNIFICANT pressures that they cannot control, and have never been able to control.

Dubya can't regulate the world market for oil. He cannot regulate supply and demand. He cannot dictate what OPEC will sell their oil for, any more than he can dictate to America Jr., or the 51st State can sell their oil for. He cannot regulate China's oil consumption. Or India's. Or Mexico's. He cannot control known and unknown reserves. He cannot control BP's production facilities. And on and on and on and on. Put most simply: he has no control whatsoever over any of these things, all of which have a lot to do with the price of oil. Your silly regulations have no bearing on the situation.

But opec is not alone, a lot of Americans want housing values to go back up 100 or even 200 thousand for home that is just not worth it. This damages the value of the dollar and of America. Even in the last debate McCain said values have to go up, that is just wrong. Even if my guy (obama) says that I will still think it is wrong. The value of anything (home, oil, whatever) must be based on what can be afforded, what the standard of living can pay for. And on a non-industry based service and retail economy that is nothing.

"The value of anything (home, oil, whatever) must be based on what can be afforded," EXACTLY. That is exactly the point. The gov't should NEVER be involved. It doesn't need to be. That is the very definition of the free market.

Gov't getting involved with your silly non-regulation regulations, just drives costs up, affecting those who can afford it the least, the most. And that is counter-productive.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 822763 · Report as offensive
fpiaw

Send message
Joined: 29 Dec 99
Posts: 236
Credit: 1,203,409
RAC: 0
United States
Message 822795 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 17:03:01 UTC - in response to Message 822763.  

Once again I have to say that you do make good points. I don't always agree with them, but they are there. I agree that OPEC could not control the prices, they can't because the price they want, 147 dollars per, is way out of the mind. The price should be around 45 to 58 dollars. I think (and I am too lazy to check) that 58 dollars was the all time record a few years ago. I know that China and India have expanded, mainly because we (along with the world) have moved our industry to china and India (which in a way reduces our use). But there has been no giant increase over the last two years ... almost everything you find says made in china and has for almost 10 years ... mainly do to PNTR.

I feel that being a market place like you want will only breed monopolies or trusts on a scale that we have not seen since the late 1800s. It would move us back to a time period before Teddy Roosevelt and Taft. Both republicans that I can look up to. A total free market is dangerous becuase of greed. Just look at what the banks did to make money in our current time. By using tricky loans they drove the value of houses up creating a bubble. Anyone who real wanted to could see this bubble forming. Banks and builders worked together to do anything they could to keep the bubble alive. Just as OPEC is trying right now to do anything to bring back the oil bubble we were just in 5 months ago.

Think back to what the railroads did in the late 1800s. It was cheap to take them out west when you were moving. But if you needed supplies or want to come home or ship goods around they hit you hard. A total free market is bad, as is a market totally controlled by a government .... even if the government is us. One thing to always remember is that we live in a democracy not a communist country. We are the government. So if you say that government regs are bad you are saying that the people (we the people) should not have a say. And if you think that "we the people" does not exist anymore then that is what we should be made at and fighting to get back.

Chris

You can make a point for what you said. However, I don't give W credit for the rise or fall. He is just not that smart ... nor am I. What I do give W credit for is doing nothing.

Which is exactly what the gov't should have been doing all along. Nothing. Not Dubya, not Clinton, not Bush41, not Reagan, not Carter, not Ford, none of them, all the way back.

His policy of no regulation let home and oil vales go 100's of percent above what they really can be. The danger of that is .... Now opec and banks want those values back. Below is an example.

In reality, gov't put direct pressure on lenders to loan money to those that could not repay it. Then, gov't put pressure on Fannie, Freddie, et cetera, to guarantee loans that they should not have.

That is just more gov't intervention, and causes the bubbles, causes them to burst, and causes the recovery to be much worse than it would have been.

Opec wants higher values: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/10/24/oil.output.opec/?iref=mpstoryview ... but the point is that oil is just at a 17 month low ... not an 80 year low, not even what it was at 2 years ago and they are acting as if prices have to go up. This I can blame on W and his lack of regulation.

Then you know nothing about economics.

OPEC ALWAYS wants higher prices. And yet, even with the amount of control they have, the price has fallen by 1/2. Which means, as it always has, that even the mighty OPEC cannot control oil prices. There are SIGNIFICANT pressures that they cannot control, and have never been able to control.

Dubya can't regulate the world market for oil. He cannot regulate supply and demand. He cannot dictate what OPEC will sell their oil for, any more than he can dictate to America Jr., or the 51st State can sell their oil for. He cannot regulate China's oil consumption. Or India's. Or Mexico's. He cannot control known and unknown reserves. He cannot control BP's production facilities. And on and on and on and on. Put most simply: he has no control whatsoever over any of these things, all of which have a lot to do with the price of oil. Your silly regulations have no bearing on the situation.

But opec is not alone, a lot of Americans want housing values to go back up 100 or even 200 thousand for home that is just not worth it. This damages the value of the dollar and of America. Even in the last debate McCain said values have to go up, that is just wrong. Even if my guy (obama) says that I will still think it is wrong. The value of anything (home, oil, whatever) must be based on what can be afforded, what the standard of living can pay for. And on a non-industry based service and retail economy that is nothing.

"The value of anything (home, oil, whatever) must be based on what can be afforded," EXACTLY. That is exactly the point. The gov't should NEVER be involved. It doesn't need to be. That is the very definition of the free market.

Gov't getting involved with your silly non-regulation regulations, just drives costs up, affecting those who can afford it the least, the most. And that is counter-productive.


ID: 822795 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 823216 - Posted: 25 Oct 2008, 18:27:27 UTC

Falling prices everywhere!!! Make sure you vote republican, so we can watch 'em all rise again... ;)

(Enjoy your ten buck per gallon fuel, you've earned it!)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 823216 · Report as offensive
Profile RichaG
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 May 99
Posts: 1690
Credit: 19,287,294
RAC: 36
United States
Message 823405 - Posted: 26 Oct 2008, 5:03:13 UTC - in response to Message 823216.  
Last modified: 26 Oct 2008, 5:04:11 UTC

Falling prices everywhere!!! Make sure you vote republican, so we can watch 'em all rise again... ;)

(Enjoy your ten buck per gallon fuel, you've earned it!)

Bush is responsible for the falling prices. :-)
bought gas for $2.33 today.
ID: 823405 · Report as offensive
Profile RichaG
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 May 99
Posts: 1690
Credit: 19,287,294
RAC: 36
United States
Message 823571 - Posted: 26 Oct 2008, 17:36:27 UTC - in response to Message 823460.  

that is hilarious joke

If Bush takes the fall for the subprime loan collapse (really a result of Clinton policies and democrats hidden welfare), why shouldn't he also take the create for the falling oil and gas prices.
ID: 823571 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 823604 - Posted: 26 Oct 2008, 19:41:15 UTC - in response to Message 823571.  

that is hilarious joke

If Bush takes the fall for the subprime loan collapse (really a result of Clinton policies and democrats hidden welfare), why shouldn't he also take the create for the falling oil and gas prices.


LOL, yes please do credit Bush for the "falling oil and gas prices" they've gone done so far that oil remains over twice the price it was at the start of his Presidency. And the driver for the current fall? Surely not a looming recession? While you're at it why don't we let Bush take credit for that too?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 823604 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 823784 - Posted: 27 Oct 2008, 6:06:49 UTC
Last modified: 27 Oct 2008, 6:07:38 UTC

fuzzy, no i don´t,but back on topic,
i haven´t seen bush take a fall on subprime loans, but oil price is clearly out of his hands, as are all the other prices as well
ID: 823784 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 823921 - Posted: 27 Oct 2008, 18:12:19 UTC - in response to Message 822795.  

I feel that being a market place like you want will only breed monopolies or trusts on a scale that we have not seen since the late 1800s. It would move us back to a time period before Teddy Roosevelt and Taft. Both republicans that I can look up to.

You say these things with no evidence or reasoning to back them up. The only actual monopolies that exist today are those that are created by law and thrust upon you by gov't force. Oddly, the gov't seems to hate monopolies, well, except it is the only thing that has ever created a monopoly.

Generally, free markets don't create them. Just like OPEC can't charge $500 a barrel, Microsoft cannot charge $800 for an operating system. Partially because they aren't monopolies, and mostly because people will cease to pay them such prices.

A total free market is dangerous becuase of greed. Just look at what the banks did to make money in our current time. By using tricky loans they drove the value of houses up creating a bubble. Anyone who real wanted to could see this bubble forming. Banks and builders worked together to do anything they could to keep the bubble alive. Just as OPEC is trying right now to do anything to bring back the oil bubble we were just in 5 months ago.

The "banks" were responding to gov't pressure (the threat of litigation) to loan people who could not otherwise get mortgages the money to buy homes. The gov't (Freddie, Fannie, et cetera) were guaranteeing those repackaged loans as AAA rated with gov't backing which they should not have been doing.

That isn't the banks, that isn't the builders. That is gov't placing pressure where it doesn't belong, causing a bubble that would never have existed.

Think back to what the railroads did in the late 1800s. It was cheap to take them out west when you were moving. But if you needed supplies or want to come home or ship goods around they hit you hard.

You seem to have to badly misguided impressions about the market today. There are no price controls. These railroads could do that to you TODAY. There's nothing to prevent them from doing so--well, except the free market--no one will pay such prices, or deal with such companies.

Besides, if it was so expensive to ship things home, people would think long and hard before shipping them out in the first place, which means that such a policy by the railroads was likely self-defeating. Of course, the railroads can't force you to ship anything, ever, so they couldn't even try to skrew you unless you wanted them to.

A total free market is bad, as is a market totally controlled by a government .... even if the government is us.

A total free market is not bad, because you never, ever, ever have to participate. And you WANT Nokia and AT&T and HTC and Sony absolutely trying to slaughter each other to bring you the best mobile phones at the cheapest possible prices. There is no downside to that because you don't ever have to buy one.

One thing to always remember is that we live in a democracy not a communist country. We are the government. So if you say that government regs are bad you are saying that the people (we the people) should not have a say. And if you think that "we the people" does not exist anymore then that is what we should be made at and fighting to get back.

I've said it before: gov't must be limited by principle because then it cannot skrew you on a whim. Meaning, that for every stupid social program that Robert Waite wants, there will be a nuclear weapon or a war or corporate welfare for his enemies the "corporatists."

Besides, would it be OK with you if in this democracy we decided to take the right to vote back away from the women or the blacks? You know, because this is a democracy and all, and "we the people," decided to do that?

Is that OK, or should there be limits on gov't power, and if so, how are they determined? By principle? Or by whim?
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 823921 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 826061 - Posted: 2 Nov 2008, 14:17:24 UTC - in response to Message 823921.  


The "banks" were responding to gov't pressure (the threat of litigation) to loan people who could not otherwise get mortgages the money to buy homes.


OK
I try to stay out of your "Fun With..." stuff, but this lie is too much to let slide.

The government pressure you are twisting as the cause of all the problems was not to force lenders into loans for people with little or bad credit.

The government was responding to court decisions which ruled that banks could no longer red circle certain areas for exclusion from lending.
This means the banks could no longer draw red circles around neighborhoods and exclude everyone within the boundaries of the circle from loans.

The practice was lumping everyone in the area into a single group without regard to their ability to repay a loan.

The government simply made it illegal to continue this practice and told the banks to loan money to qualified applicants without prejudice to where they live.
Many people within the red circled areas had successful businesses or community services and still chose to live within the communities.
These are the people that were being discriminated against for no other reason than their place of residence.

What the bankers and money lenders did after that is the cause of the problem.
The government NEVER instructed the banks and money lenders to give loans to some guy living in a cardboard box.


ID: 826061 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29418
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 826124 - Posted: 2 Nov 2008, 16:52:20 UTC - in response to Message 826061.  


The "banks" were responding to gov't pressure (the threat of litigation) to loan people who could not otherwise get mortgages the money to buy homes.


OK
I try to stay out of your "Fun With..." stuff, but this lie is too much to let slide.

The government pressure you are twisting as the cause of all the problems was not to force lenders into loans for people with little or bad credit.

The government was responding to court decisions which ruled that banks could no longer red circle certain areas for exclusion from lending.
This means the banks could no longer draw red circles around neighborhoods and exclude everyone within the boundaries of the circle from loans.

The practice was lumping everyone in the area into a single group without regard to their ability to repay a loan.

The government simply made it illegal to continue this practice and told the banks to loan money to qualified applicants without prejudice to where they live.
Many people within the red circled areas had successful businesses or community services and still chose to live within the communities.
These are the people that were being discriminated against for no other reason than their place of residence.

What the bankers and money lenders did after that is the cause of the problem.
The government NEVER instructed the banks and money lenders to give loans to some guy living in a cardboard box.



That isn't quite the entire story. The law assumed that there were qualified borrowers in all areas equally. Actually it assumed there was an equal $ amount of qualified borrowers in all areas. It mandated that a $ value percent of loans be made locally. Once a bank had lent to all local borrowers who were qualified, if it wanted to lend more money it had no choice but to lend to high risk persons as it was required to maintain a specific $ ratio of loans between local and not local.

You are right that the law does not force the bank to make the loan, but it did prevent the bank from making any other loan if it didn't maintain the $ ratio of local to not local.

Part two is the law that forced Fannie and Freddie to buy up high risk loans. This was done to get the credit crunch off the local bank so it could make that risky loan and sell them to Fannie or Freddie, claim the loan on the CRA paperwork and be free to make a loan to a qualified customer outside the local area. The crooks found that this didn't apply only to CRA loans and went hog wild selling liars loans and making their money off the commissions at no risk to themselves.

We know the end result. That occurred because the premise that all areas have qualified $ amount of borrowers in equal amounts isn't true. The legislature failed to do its job and study the regulation before it implemented it, because it was a feel good social welfare law. Watch out for more of this.

ID: 826124 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15688
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 826151 - Posted: 2 Nov 2008, 17:24:21 UTC - in response to Message 823921.  

...Microsoft cannot charge $800 for an operating system.


[Off topic] Have you seen the price of Windows Server 2008 (in all its various flavors)? Not exactly what you meant, but its still an OS and its still $800 (and more).
ID: 826151 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 826665 - Posted: 3 Nov 2008, 20:11:38 UTC - in response to Message 826151.  

Or they could produce windows ME part Deux/ windows Vista and expect a prime price for the OS. Sadly most people I know are formatting their HDD and installing XP where they can. The office I work at has no desire or plan to convert to anything other than XP. If it works don't fix it.

Sure blame CLinton for the current mortgage debachle. Then look at the current president and ask yourself, "why hadn't he done something to fix this enormous problem prior to the current corporate handouts?" . THe answer is the regime had no clue how broken things were since they were more concerned with deregulation than actual accountability in business. See what a MA in business from harvard gets you.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 826665 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 826694 - Posted: 3 Nov 2008, 21:26:09 UTC - in response to Message 826061.  

The "banks" were responding to gov't pressure (the threat of litigation) to loan people who could not otherwise get mortgages the money to buy homes.

OK
I try to stay out of your "Fun With..." stuff, but this lie is too much to let slide.

Of course, there was no lie, because what I said was true. Banks were responding to gov't pressure make loans that they otherwise would not have made.

The government pressure you are twisting as the cause of all the problems was not to force lenders into loans for people with little or bad credit.

The government was responding to court decisions which ruled that banks could no longer red circle certain areas for exclusion from lending.
This means the banks could no longer draw red circles around neighborhoods and exclude everyone within the boundaries of the circle from loans.

The practice was lumping everyone in the area into a single group without regard to their ability to repay a loan.

Ummmm, so what? A) Nearly every single property within these areas (just like anywhere else) had a mortgage on it--so somebody was making these loans. B) It is not a proper role of gov't to determine to whom private lenders should be loaning money.

But don't kid yourself, the courts are a part of the gov't.

The government simply made it illegal to continue this practice and told the banks to loan money to qualified applicants without prejudice to where they live.

Yep. They used gov't force, in this case the threat of never-ending, politically motivated litigation, to force private companies to make loans that they otherwise would not have made.

Many people within the red circled areas had successful businesses or community services and still chose to live within the communities.
These are the people that were being discriminated against for no other reason than their place of residence.

What the bankers and money lenders did after that is the cause of the problem.
The government NEVER instructed the banks and money lenders to give loans to some guy living in a cardboard box.

Wrong, as usual. The pressure did not stop with the "end" of redlining. There was additional pressure to make home loans to people who, although not living in a cardboard box, did not have the income or credit rating to qualify. This resulted in some skin-color groups not fairing as well in aggregate statistics which the gov't then said was "institutional racism," and the threat of never-ending, politically motivated litigation continued.

Then forcing Fannie and Freddie to guarantee these loans as AAA rated securities further compounded the problem.

In other words, my original point still stands: The "banks" were responding to gov't pressure (the threat of litigation) to loan people who could not otherwise get mortgages the money to buy homes.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 826694 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Fun with Falling Oil Hypocrisy!!


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.