The economy would be on fire if this was true.

And what is it that I am talking about? The belief on the left that government actually creates jobs. We have been told for 3 years now that they have a plan, and that the plan involves massive government spending and regulation, because that’s how jobs are created. We even have these morons admitting that they believe firmly government regulation is the way to create jobs:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) tells MSNBC regulations create jobs because a business will have to hire people to help them comply with the new requirement.

And there you have it. Regulation creates jobs! Shit after the last 3 years of regulations the economy should be moving at Warp speed if idiots like this Ellison fella where ever partially right. In fact, those of us that live in the real world and are not burdened by the nonsense that permeates progressive big government and academia, where they get their insane beliefs from, know better. Regulations, especially the massive overregulation of the last few years, kills jobs.

“I think the answer is no,” Ellison said when asked if he believes regulations kill jobs. “And here is why: When we talked about increasing fuel efficiency standards, the industry responded, and they need engineers and designers and manufacturers, and they need actually more people to help respond to the new requirement.”

Right! They hired people to respond to these new standards. Then they likely laid off ten times as many, if not double that number, and closed down plants as they figured out how to cut costs and deal with the bureaucratic insanity. Only academics and big government progressives would think more bureaucracy is the answer.

“I believe if the government says, look, we have got to reduce our carbon footprint, you will kick into gear a whole number of people that know how to do that or have ideas about that, and that will be a job engine. I understand what you mean, because if anything adds a cost to a business, you could assume that that will diminish that business’s ability to hire. But I don’t think that’s actually right. I think what businesses want is customers and what — if they are selling product, if they have a product to sell they will do well even if they have some new regulations to meet,” the Congressman said.

I believe in the tooth fair and Santa Clause! Idiot. Cost to a business don’t affect it’s ability to hire? What about the fucking price the consumer has to pay for the product being forced on them? I for one want none of these sure to be shitty “fuel efficient” vehicles that these assholes are pushing. That’s because the trade offs to get them there seem insane and detrimental as hell to me. Especially since I am also made to pay far more for gas by asshole watermelons that are hiding behind their communist desire to upend the status quo and see the oil industry as the enemy.

Seriously, does anyone expect any of these progressive moonbats to create any jobs at all outside of their crystal bureaucratic palaces? Not me. But it sure gives them more power to do so. Fuck, why don’t they come clean and say that they need to confiscate all property and regulate every aspect of people’s lives and we would be living in a boom economy where everyone could have 2 jobs. After all, this nonsense worked so well where ever else they tried it…

Comments are closed.

  1. TxAg94

    Somehwat related, though not directly to regulation…

    I can tell you first hand from experience with ARRA that it did “create jobs” to comply. More precisely, it drained money form the actual physical construction of projects to manage the money and regulations. I’m mixed on how I feel about it. On the one hand, that money could be spent on making the final result better or more comprehensive. On the other, if we’re spending taxpayer dollars then I expect and demand a full and thorough accounting. The reporting requirements were a pain in the ass, most importantly because it was through a government created and run web-based system that would have been technologically embarrassing 10 years ago, let alone today. I guess you could point to it as another example of how the government can do anything the private sector can do only much worse. There is no client-based motivation for quality of service so it sucked, as all government agencies do.

    What has continued to piss me off is the fact that there are so many regulations and controls, most redundant and inefiicient at best, on money given over to things that produce tangible results. What I mean is, the ARRA money, like it or not, was at least supposed to result in infrastructure improvements that if nothing else you could point to and say, “That’s what you got for your money.” Yet the money given over to banks and insurance companies reulted in nothing physical for the dollars. There was, as we are learning, virtually no effort to make a true and accurate accounting of it, at least not public. And the money involved made ARRA look like lunch money for a 5th grader.

    Sorry to go off on a tangent but in my mind they are related. Bottom line, they’re right, their regulations do create jobs. Unfortunately, they are jobs that we shouldn’t need and that rob money from things we do need, things that would result in economic growth. I suspect it results in more than a few lobbying jobs that keep these same cocksuckers employed once they’re run out of office. Pass legislation that you can later get paid to help people circumvent.

    Thumb up 1

  2. AlexInCT *

    I can tell you first hand from experience with ARRA that it did “create jobs” to comply. More precisely, it drained money form the actual physical construction of projects to manage the money and regulations. I’m mixed on how I feel about it. On the one hand, that money could be spent on making the final result better or more comprehensive. On the other, if we’re spending taxpayer dollars then I expect and demand a full and thorough accounting.

    If you use the massive bureaucracy that schools require these days and the enormous cost to keep that bureaucracy in place, while teachers and student knowledge continue to trend downward as an example of how this stuff will eventually play out, and I am sure you will no longer end up with mixed feelings Tx.

    It’s the whole broken window economic model revisited yet again. When you force people to spend their money on A, they have no money to spend on other things, and someone else, including the people forced to spend their money on something that was not their first priority nor likely to make them any better off, suffers. There is no way to put lipstick on this pig and make it hot unless you are drunk.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT *

    “That’s what you got for your money.” Yet the money given over to banks and insurance companies reulted in nothing physical for the dollars.

    What where you expecting from this I must ask? You do understand that they lied through their teeth when thy told us that they needed to hand this money over to help banks get back to lending or some such other nonsense, right? That money was paid so the banks could clear their books of the nearly 1 trillion dollars of high risk bad loans that basically went poof the day after the housing market imploded. It was government paying off the lenders they forced to go along with their harebrained social engineering schemes by force as they had promised. Couple that with the “new regulation”, and it is obvious that there was never any intention to help anyone but themselves, and the help was to cover their ass from an economic implosion caused by forcing lenders to give loans to terrible applicants. The one thing we did get is a the framework for this whole thing to be repeated not too far down the line yet again.

    Sorry to go off on a tangent but in my mind they are related. Bottom line, they’re right, their regulations do create jobs. Unfortunately, they are jobs that we shouldn’t need and that rob money from things we do need, things that would result in economic growth.

    It’s the whole government picking who wins and who loses thing all over. These big government collectivists want to play god. That’s basically what this boils down to.

    Thumb up 0

  4. mikedomi39

    Couple that with the “new regulation”, and it is obvious that there was never any intention to help anyone but themselves, and the help was to cover their ass from an economic implosion caused by forcing lenders to give loans to terrible applicants.

    I know it should’nt make me laugh when you continue to push this half-truth again and again, but it does. It’s not entirely true, other people who post here have also said it’s not entirely true, but you continue to trot it out over and over and over.

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT *

    What other people are you talking about Mike? I would like a list so I can smack their stupid arses around too. As far as I remember there where some like you that covered their eyes & ears and tried real hard to shift blame, unsuccessfully, I should add.

    And what’s not, to use your words, “entirely true” mean? Is that like being “a little pregnant”, which isn’t as serious as being really really pregnant? What I have been saying is what happened. Exactly what happened. The LSm and the left might wish it to be otherwise, but economists, the real serious ones that know better than to wealth spreading social engineering nonsense all agree. You libs might not like that, but the fact is that the problem was created by the social engineers attempting, through big government laws, to forced lending institutions, against economic reality, to give money to high risk people, so leftist big government twits could “spread the wealth”. Do I need to rehash that entire history, point out the role of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, how government had to guarantee them restitution with tax payer money, and all that other bullshit, for you to point out where you feel it all ends up being not “entirely true”? Because I have yet to have any collectivist make any kind of argument that was based on truth of any kind that made any of these issues less relevant or untrue even in the slightest. All I hear is “deregulation” when there was nothing of the fucking sort, and the evil of capitalism and banks. The fucking asshole politicians that did all the stuff that caused the implosion? They get to straddle us with even more of the same.. As if it was evil bankers putting guns to people’s fucking heads to buy homes they knew they couldn’t afford, then take out second and third mortgages to buy cars, boats, and other luxury items, that was the problem instead of irresponsible people being given money they shouldn’t have because banks where told by politicians that if things went bad, tax payers would foot the bill.

    And this exact problem still persists despite another 2000 pages of more “regulation” that the people that caused this problem created without addressing their social engineering bullshit, almost guaranteeing us another repeat down the line.

    Thumb up 0

  6. mikedomi39

    ”. Do I need to rehash that entire history, point out the role of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, how government had to guarantee them restitution with tax payer money, and all that other bullshit, for you to point out where you feel it all ends up being not “entirely true”?

    No, because the “entire” history you speak of is based on the faulty premise that the mortgage/banks were led around on a leash by the governement, being forced to dispense money on the govts whim to all sorts of risky lendees, with no hope of being able to protest. All in the name of “social engineering”. You act like the banks/lenders got nothing out of it, when it’s very clear that alot of pleople got quite a bit of money out of it, until the house of cards collapsed.

    I’m not arguing governments role in this collapse. Your constant attacks on Fanny and Freddie are right on. One only needs to watch the video of Barney Frank telling everyone to “Move on, nothing to see here”, makes that obvious. I say your statement that “collectivists” are the sole cause of the collapse is not entirely true because many have said that you can’t have a collapse as huge as we did SOLELY because of government policy. Lenders taking on more risk than they should have, Lendees taking on more debt than they could afford, and rating agencies who massaged their rankings of CDS’s all had a hand in what happened. I wish you would at least mention that, instead of just ranting about progressives.

    Thumb up 0

  7. AlexInCT *

    No, because the “entire” history you speak of is based on the faulty premise that the mortgage/banks were led around on a leash by the governement, being forced to dispense money on the govts whim to all sorts of risky lendees, with no hope of being able to protest. All in the name of “social engineering”.

    Ah, so you believe that they simply could have ignored regulation and not bothered with the massive law suits and the subsequent business ending scrutiny from government? Or is it that they could have contacted the people at the IMF that run the universe to tell the angry social engineering government bureaucrats that where not happy with them where to shove it? Or maybe you think they somehow got career ending material on the people in government, forced them to then agree to bail them out if things went bad, then decided to just flush money down the toilet because after all, it was no skin off their backs?

    And you seriously are pretending that we didn’t get government to force lending to high risk people at the same rate they would loan to highly qualified people, with the threat of being raked over the coals if they didn’t comply, by people that where, to quote one of the big shakers & movers in this group – our president – all about spreading the wealth? That’s social engineering if you are English or economic challenged. How laughable.

    BTW, do you remember good old Barney calling McCain and Bush racists for pointing out that what Barney and Dodd where letting Fannie & Freddie do whatever the hell they wanted, despite the obvious risk and acceleration of the demise of the lending industry and the usual suspects in the LSM that love this social engineering bullshit parroting whatever the crooks said? Just like they and you are doing now in an attempt to deflect blame? Cause I sure as hell do. What I also remember is that Frank & Dodd didn’t have a single problem with this whole shceme until they realized their ass was on the line, and they needed to play defense.

    You act like the banks/lenders got nothing out of it, when it’s very clear that alot of pleople got quite a bit of money out of it, until the house of cards collapsed.

    Ah! I get it. So your point is that banks are really at fault because the social engineers that wanted to push this nonsense had to bribe them hardcore to get them to not sabotage the whole thing? Did you blame the people that held out for lucrative handouts – courtesy of the US tax payers – when Nancy and Harry where trying to buy votes for Obamacare, so they could pass that shitstorm, or do you blame the democrats that got huge concessions/pay-offs and exemptions for wanting something in return for the big screw job? I bet you blamed the people that realized they where being fed a shit sandwich and held out for benefits to offset the massive loss they saw coming.

    WTF do you think I have been saying? The social engineers had a poor idea and they could not get banks to go along with them until they put the US tax payer on the hook for the consequences of things going wrong. And believe me, thing had no other option BUT to go wrong. People that are grown up enough to understand this collectivism shit is nothing but wishful thinking by insanely immature people looking for free things like I do, where not surprised when the whole house of cards collapsed.

    The difference between you and me is that I understand the god damned problem was the social engineering idiots, and not the banks demanding that if they where forced to play Russian roulette they somehow got compensated for the risk. Frank & Dodd, with a ton of help from the LSM, fooled everyone into letting them make it look like they took away the goodie bag, but left the fundamental problem in existence. And now everyone is pissed that banks are not lending enough or suddenly being serious about who gets a loan. Don’t worry. Sooner than later they will revert to the same old way of doing things, banks will be told tax payers will be on the hook for the bad loans, and we will get a repeat.

    I am sure you will blame the banks yet again.

    Thumb up 0

  8. mikedomi39

    so you believe that they simply could have ignored regulation and not bothered with the massive law suits and the subsequent business ending scrutiny from government?

    What are you even talking about with this? business ending scrutiny? Are you saying the Govt was going to shut down certain banks over mortgage lending?

    Or is it that they could have contacted the people at the IMF

    How was the IMF involved in it?

    BTW, do you remember good old Barney calling McCain and Bush racists for pointing out that what Barney and Dodd where letting Fannie & Freddie do whatever the hell they wanted,

    Awww Poor Mccain couldnt handle name calling? Really?

    WTF do you think I have been saying?

    I know exactly what you are saying. Something that isnt entirely true.

    The difference between you and me is that I understand the god damned problem was the social engineering idiots, and not the banks demanding that if they where forced to play Russian roulette they somehow got compensated for the risk.

    No the difference is you think that “social engineering” was the only cause. I do not. No mention from you about the ratings agencies, nor stupid lendees, or dumb/corrupt lenders.

    And I’m sorry, but roping in Obamacare, something tha happened AFTER the collapse makes no sense to me at all. Your hatred of all things liberal/progressive turns you into a wild, raving mess on this issue.

    Thumb up 0

  9. AlexInCT *

    What are you even talking about with this? business ending scrutiny? Are you saying the Govt was going to shut down certain banks over mortgage lending?

    Are you seriously pretending that the fucking class warriors and race hucksters have not threatened, with the power of these laws that they passed to social engineer the economy, anyone and everyone, with massive litigation costs and financial penalties when accused of engaging in discriminatory practices, for non compliance, Mike? Have you missed the last 6 decades of news related to this shit? Do you conveniently forget the damage that simply being accused of having racist motivations caused anyone up to but a few years ago? Or are you playing stupid? I for one know several companies that closed doors after they where litigated/regulated out of business, be it because of bankruptcy or simply because the cost vs. return quotient skewed so far towards cost, it was not worth it.

    But let’s not go by what I know and look at the facts. Here is Wikipedia on the issue. From the site:

    In 1993 President Bill Clinton made changing the Community Reinvestment Act to make mortgages more obtainable for lower and lower-middle class families. The changes ushered in during the Clinton Presidency encouraged banks to make mortgage loans to people who otherwise would not have qualified for them. In 1998 the Federal Bank of Boston issued a report entitled “Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending.” The 30 page document was intended to serve as a guide to loan officers to help curb discriminatory lending [10] “Closing the Gap,” instructs banks to hire based upon diversity needs, sweeten the compensation structure for working with lower income applicants, encourages shifting high risk, low income applications to the sub prime market, by saying “the secondary market [Subprime Market] is willing to consider ratios above the standard 28/36,” and “Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor.”

    While, “Closing the Gap” was not an industry-wide mandate, it illustrates the efforts banks took to meet public pressure to overcome perceived mortgage discrimination. Under the Clinton administration community organizers pressured banks to increase their loans to minorities even though many minority applicants could not qualify for traditional 30-year fix mortgages. Karen Wegmann, the head of Wells Fargo’s community development group in 1993 told the New York Times, “The atmosphere now is one of saying yes.” [11] The same New York Times article echoed “Closing the Gap,” writing, “The banks have also modified some standards for credit approval. Many low-income people do not have credit-bureau files because they do not have credit cards. So lenders are accepting records of continuously paid utility bills as evidence of creditworthiness. Similarly, they will accept steady income from several employers instead of the length of time at one job.”

    Now, this Wiki entry is not being totally honest because it specifically ignores the reality when it says that this stuff wasn’t an industry wide mandate (not to be confused with two guys going out), as one can easily find out by clicking the link for the the Community Reinvestment Act, where you find this tid-bit:

    The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank’s compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.[8]

    I bolded that for you: any bank that wants to remain FDIC insured better fucking comply, or else. That alone is a HUGE threat! Losing this guarantee puts the bank at a massive risk and is tantamount to a death sentence. How many people do you think would stay with a bank that basically wipes them out if the bank goes under, huh? In fact, I urge you to find me a bank that isn’t FDIC insured out there that can be considered a serious financial institution and capable of loaning money on that scale. And the act never clearly states what the criteria are – which means Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can call you racist if you even deny a single black person a loan – so basically lending institutions are going to assume the worst.

    Then there is this laughable statement that followed what I quote above:

    The law, however, emphasizes that an institution’s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4] An institution’s CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.[6][9]

    Right. Don’t do bad things, but if you even do one thing I don’t like you are going to be investigated and bye-bye FDIC insurance. But don’t stop there! Try to merge, buy, or sell, and the Feds will cock block you. No penalty there at all.

    Now you can go back to pretending banks are the bad guys and basically could simply have walked away from this shit sandwich.

    How was the IMF involved in it?

    That was sarcasm.

    BTW, do you remember good old Barney calling McCain and Bush racists for pointing out that what Barney and Dodd where letting Fannie & Freddie do whatever the hell they wanted,

    Awww Poor Mccain couldnt handle name calling? Really?

    What a telling response! Asshole leftists have destroyed people’sconservative’s reputation for decades, often by merely insinuating they are racists without serious proof or on the flimsiest of evidence, if not outright manufacturing it themselves, and you find that when McCain was called a racist for pointing out this scheme was doomed, humorous. Thanks for making my point for me.

    WTF do you think I have been saying?

    I know exactly what you are saying. Something that isnt entirely true.

    You can keep pretending, but the facts speak differently. The one not telling the truth is you.

    The difference between you and me is that I understand the god damned problem was the social engineering idiots, and not the banks demanding that if they where forced to play Russian roulette they somehow got compensated for the risk.

    No the difference is you think that “social engineering” was the only cause. I do not. No mention from you about the ratings agencies, nor stupid lendees, or dumb/corrupt lenders.

    Social engineering WAS the only cause. If these fuckers had not passed laws that basically not only violated economic reality but tried to create an unsustainable one, we would not be here today. You, because of your ideology, HAVE to find other boogie men to pretend this isn’t so, because otherwise you have to admit what you believe in is nonsense.

    And I’m sorry, but roping in Obamacare, something tha happened AFTER the collapse makes no sense to me at all.

    What happened after the collapse? Obama is a Marxist and firm believer in the wealth redistribution scheme that fathered this bullshit attempt to force lending institutions to ignore economic reality and laws so progressive morons could try to recreate the world in their image. That makes him part & parcel of the group responsible for this asinine practice. When the shitstorm came after the collapse he doubled down and flushed a trillion dollars down the toilet in that stimuluspatronage bill, and grew the welfare state to double its size in but a year.

    Your hatred of all things liberal/progressive turns you into a wild, raving mess on this issue.

    My hatred is of all things stupid. I can not help if liberals seem to be all about that. I provided proof, yet again, that I am the one in the right. If you want, I can even add more proof. You have provided more hyperbole and talking points. The one blinded by their ideology is evident.

    The next time, try a little harder. This was too easy. Your attempt to blame the guy that was forced at gunpoint to wear a bomb vest and told to rob a bank for the problem fails miserably, yet again.

    Thumb up 1

  10. mikedomi39

    Now, this Wiki entry is not being totally honest because it specifically ignores the reality when it says that this stuff wasn’t an industry wide mandate (not to be confused with two guys going out), as one can easily find out by clicking the link for the the Community Reinvestment Act, where you find this tid-bit:

    Did you read further down in the link?

    “Some economists, politicians and other commentators[105][106] have charged that the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis by encouraging banks to make unsafe loans. However, every empirical study that has looked at CRA loans has concluded that they were safer than subprime mortgages that were purely profit driven, and CRA loans accounted for a tiny fraction of total subprime mortgages”

    “According to Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that “the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending” was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim”

    ” In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that “there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust”, relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.”

    “Legal and financial experts have noted that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][122] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made “perhaps one in four” sub-prime loans, and that “the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight”.

    (I know this one above comes from a Clinton appointee, so you will immediatley trash it as a lie, but it did come from your link)

    “A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans”

    Your attempt to blame the guy that was forced at gunpoint to wear a bomb vest and told to rob a bank for the problem fails miserably, yet again.

    I blame a lot of people. I don’t understand why you don’t get that.

    Thumb up 0

  11. AlexInCT *

    Yes I read further down the link, and dismissed the rest of that nonsense. Like the misleading entry that banks where not FORCED to loan to people with bad credit it was all bogus.

    “Some economists, politicians and other commentators[105][106]

    Krugman, Dodd, Frank, Obama, and Alan Colmes I bet. Not like they have any skin in this game.

    have charged that the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis by encouraging banks to make unsafe loans. However, every empirical study that has looked at CRA loans has concluded that they were safer than subprime mortgages that were purely profit driven, and CRA loans accounted for a tiny fraction of total subprime mortgages”

    Empirical study? Fuck, this is as deceptive as can be. It’s flat out bullshit. Who the fook do you think those subprime mortgages where given to? And who the fook do you think allowed it by law (That CRA law did BTW)? Do you understand what a sub prime mortgage even is? From Wikipedia itself:

    In finance, subprime lending (also referred to as near-prime, non-prime, and second-chance lending) means making loans to people who may have difficulty maintaining the repayment schedule. These loans are characterized by higher interest rates and less favorable terms in order to compensate for higher credit risk.[1]

    Proponents of subprime lending maintain that the practice extends credit to people who would otherwise not have access to the credit market. Professor Harvey S. Rosen of Princeton University explained, “The main thing that innovations in the mortgage market have done over the past 30 years is to let in the excluded: the young, the discriminated-against, the people without a lot of money in the bank to use for a down payment.”[2]

    Thanks for making my point for me that the problem was caused by banks being told to give shitty risks loans. Higher interest rates or not, these people where all but guaranteed to default. Blaming the crisis on higher interest rates for people that where high risk, while ignoring they should never have been given the loan in the first place, is tantamount to admitting the problem was that we had a fucking law pushing lending institutions to give unqualified people money.

    And let’s look at some other facts about this practice was so popular, why the left so wanted more of this, and get a real economist’s take on this:

    So-called “community groups” like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion. The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA “protest” is issued by a “community group.” This can cost banks great sums of money, and the “community groups” understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.

    And let us not forget what entities where the ones primarily responsible for packaging them and making them look good? Freddie and Fannie, which as the article says:

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were two government-sponsored enterrises (GSEs) that created, and remain highly involved in, the secondary market for mortgage-backed securities. Before the subprime mortgage crisis, they owned or guaranteed $1.4 trillion, or 40%, of all U.S. mortgages. They only held $168 billion in subprime mortgages — but it was enough to capsize the two. Find out how the two GSEs supported the secondary market, which helped American families realize the dream of homeownership, and how that turned into the nightmare of the subprime mortgage crisis.

    Guess who Freddie & Fanny’s biggest supporters/protectors were/are? We have also bailed them out for those $168 million plus, because it turns out they held a lot more than that original $168 billion. Even worse, even the fining NYT admits they stiffed us taxpayers with the legal bills to defend these culprits too. And that 2000 page shit sandwich Dodd & Frank passed – they are the answer to the question starting this paragraph – does NOTHING to address this fundamental problem. In fact, it now tells banks they have to give loans to shitty risk WITHOUT pricing the risk. No chance for that to ever cause us more pain.

    Any fucking way you cut this, it comes down to government trying to social engineer by law, then the usual progressive race hucksters and organizations forcing them to give loans to bad risks that never, ever, should have been given any kind of loan, and a whole house of cards being erected to hide the fact that between HUD and the CRA American tax payers where looking a trillions in bad liability.

    I blame a lot of people. I don’t understand why you don’t get that.

    Again, when you blame the banks for this, it’s like you are blaming the guy forced to don a bomb vest at gun point to then go rob a bank, for the bank robbery. The only people that want this defense to seem plausible are the ones that put the gun to this guy’s head and chained the vest to his body. Me, I blame the people and things they do that cause the problem, not a lot of people by association.

    Here is a clue for you Mike: show me how we would have gotten this crisis without the CRA, which basically ignored economic reality, and I might take you more seriously. You are not telling me that you think lenders could have just invented such a seriously risky product on their own without a law to force them to.

    Thumb up 1

  12. AlexInCT *

    I blame a lot of people. I don’t understand why you don’t get that.

    Speaking of blame. Do you blame banks for Durbin’s amendment in the worthless Frank-Dodd 2000 page “how to create another economic crisis” manual that shifted the cost of using debit cards from the businesses allowing debit card payments to the banks, for now shifting that cost to consumers? Or do you feel banks should just have sucked that loss up like the social engineers wanted? Because I think that’s the problem with the social engineers: they always want someone else to give shit out for free.

    And for what it’s worth. I think Jesse jackson Jr. is a moron as well.

    Way too kind to him.

    Thumb up 0

  13. blameme

    Mike,

    Awww Poor Mccain couldnt handle name calling? Really?

    is a pathetic reply.

    The whole point he was making was not that it hurt McCain’s feelings, but that this cry of racism is what these cockroaches hide behind when the republicans start to shine the light on their bs policies.

    Look, I think there is plenty of blame to go around, but you calling this out as merely hurt feelings I feel is purposely missing the point of how petty and deceptive this tactic is and ultimately, how by hiding behind this tactic, many piss poor decisions slide by proper scrutiny.

    Thumb up 0

  14. mikedomi39

    Yes I read further down the link, and dismissed the rest of that nonsense.

    Ohhhh…If it doesnt fit your view, it’s nonsense.

    Thanks for making my point for me that the problem was caused by banks being told to give shitty risks loans.

    I did no such thing, you just decided to pull that out of thin air.

    And let us not forget what entities where the ones PRIMARILY responsible for packaging them and making them look good?

    Thank you for making MY point that “Social Engineers” were NOT the only reason we had this problem. Which is what I have been saying.

    You are not telling me that you think lenders could have just invented such a seriously risky product on their own without a law to force them to.

    S&L Crisis? the Black Box Deals Brooksley Borne tried to draw attention to during the Clinton Admin.? Why are you so sure that all Bankers/Lenders/Investors only create safe,secure investment products, and never abuse them?

    Do you blame banks for Durbin’s amendment in the worthless Frank-Dodd 2000 page “how to create another economic crisis” manual that shifted the cost of using debit cards from the businesses allowing debit card payments to the banks, for now shifting that cost to consumers?

    No, I blame the banks for managing their capital so poorly, they have to find as many ways to raise more of it.

    Any fucking way you cut this, it comes down to government trying to social engineer by law, then the usual progressive race hucksters and organizations forcing them to give loans to bad risks that never, ever, should have been given any kind of loan

    This is just not true. You act like the banks had no voice in this. No Lobby group, no PR arm, no friendly MSM media (fox?).no way to get the word out about the CRA concerns you voice over and over and over again. Concerns that apparently people analyzed and at least partially dismissed, but you ignore that as “nonsense”.

    You are like a combination of Glenn Beck and Drumwaster. And it sucks, because when you arent ranting and raving, you make great posts about Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Al Alawaki, and other bad Obama Admin. decisions. I’m sorry, but you are not complety right on this one.

    Thumb up 1

  15. Manwhore

    Alex:

    Have you actually read the 2000 pages or so of the CRA? Have you read all of clauses, footnotes, etc. enough to say with assurance that the housing crisis was the fault of lending money to minorities and the poor?

    Once again, this is partisan hackery at it’s ugliest. Let me try to break this down into bite size chunks for you and ask you a few questions to start it off:

    1.) Is the government bailing out banks, protecting bonuses by law, and removing debt with taxpayer money “capitalism?”

    2.) What is the total percentage of money lent to said money lent to poor and minorities on a pie chart?

    3.) My grandfather said “if you want to know where the source of the problem is, you follow the money.” Where is the concentration of money in the working economy? What business sector?

    I know that there’s no getting through to you (this is more to validate mike than it is to get any kind of intelligent response from you) so let me tell you with authority that while I can agree that CRA is a catalyst to sub-prime lending, it was only a component, not the total problem.

    If what you are alleging is true then why would a CEO get all nice and cozy with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Mozilo the same people that were going to destroy his business? Why would he be banned from being a CEO of any company henceforth for doing exactly what he was “FORCED” to do by the government?

    Your simplistic solution rules out the actual factors on the ground that are attributed to the mess. Sure, you can lay some of the blame on the CRA, but that’s not at all the major factors. The simple truth is that everyone’s hands were in the cookie jar and everyone was turning a blind eye to bubble that was being created.

    What baffles me about your logic is that you have this hatred of all things government, yet you don’t seem to want to come to grips with the fact that banks and government are kissing each other goodnight every evening. You prefer to only see the government angle.

    Even now, banks are not making money being banks. They are making money buying interest free treasury notes (with TARP money) and then making money off of interest. Printing money at the hands of *government* yet you are taking a side of “this is capitalism and you’re all commies for disagreeing with me.”

    Coming from having direct family members working in both the biggest real estate lenders, and the biggest bank, I would say you are very misguided in your opinion. You assume so much on one aspect, and disregard any other aspects that anyone brings up. Again, this is “I am a linker, not a thinker” mentality. I particularly enjoy when you dismiss out of hand the links you are given, but then expect, line for line, acknowledgement of the links you approve of. You display no ability to read and discern opinions, you are simply seeking a link on the internet that chimes with your McDonalds Happy Meal view point that has been sold to you.

    Some conservative this is. Willing to ignore facts, and support big gummint if it chimes with the radio shows that you listen to.

    Thumb up 0

  16. Section8

    Alex, I think Mike already stated the government had their share of blame, but so did irresponsible banks. The banks were forced to make some bad loans that is true, but being creative, they took a shitty situation and tried to find a way to make it profitable, and once they did that some went wild with it all on their own. By creating liar loans, and adjustable loans that were completely ridiculous. I don’t recall any of these banks going before Congress before the shit hit the fan complaining that giving a 400K loan to a guy that makes 40K a year, and that would adjust from 400 a month to 3000 a month in a few years and taking into account average wage increases was a certain failure even though the math is pretty obvious.

    Thumb up 0

  17. AlexInCT *

    Ohhhh…If it doesnt fit your view, it’s nonsense.

    No Mike. If it doesn’t fit the FACTS or tries to muddle the TRUTH it is nonsense.

    I did no such thing, you just decided to pull that out of thin air.

    Go re-read your posts Mike. Specifically that part where you are lecturing me about the rest of the link you think I ignored thinking you had a whammy, but which I ignored because it was pure spin from the leftards running that site trying to lay blame for the mortgage crisis on evil greedy banks using sub prime mortgages, without understanding, or purposefully & willfully ignoring that the subprime mortgages are PRE-FUCKING-CISELY what the CRA social engineering was totally about. Subprime loans are loan mechanism that was created so that lending institutions could charge high rates, in an effort to cover the massive risk, when lending money to people that NEVER should have qualified and been given a loan for even ten dollars, let alone tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I am not even going to bother going into the details of how messed up this whole thing was where for example people often qualified for these loans with fucking welfare as their collateral.

    And let us not forget what entities where the ones PRIMARILY responsible for packaging them and making them look good?

    Thank you for making MY point that “Social Engineers” were NOT the only reason we had this problem. Which is what I have been saying.

    Are you fucking kidding me Mike? You do know that despite the fact Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae are on paper considered to not really be government controlled entities -because of some clever maneuvering that was done so the crooks in government would then not have to add the balance of loans held by them to the US debt – that they are precisely government controlled entities, right? Why do you think the crooks used them to launder the shitty sub prime mortgages, send them all that money to help bail them out, and that the US tax payers are now picking up the bill for the current litigation against Frank’s butt buddy Raines and others on both sides? If anything, you make the point for my case by coming off so misinformed on the issues.

    S&L Crisis? the Black Box Deals Brooksley Borne tried to draw attention to during the Clinton Admin.?

    Do you honestly want to make the case that these things happened, not because the politicians made the laws that made them possible, but because the lawmakers created the framework that made these inevitable? Both the Savings & Loans problems and the Derivatives problems stem from REGULATION that pushed the institutions into doing bad things to conform to social engineering demands. The same as the CRA did when it basically left no room BUT for lending institutions to create the sub prime mortgages and give loans to people that NEVER should have gotten them. Jeez. How hard is this concept to understand? The enablers seem to be there causing problems every time they try to social engineer their ideological bullshit into an economic system that simply will never work in the real world when induced to do things that fly against the way things work.

    Why are you so sure that all Bankers/Lenders/Investors only create safe,secure investment products, and never abuse them?

    Well, for one – and I agree that is until recently when we got this “too big to fail nonsense” that has all but guaranteed we will see bigger and far more damaging crisis in the future – because when they do bad things, they paid for it. For example, that Savings & Loans crisis you pointed out. There were consequences to bad economic decisions by lenders! Do stupid shit and you where out of business. Tax payers paid off the people that got hosed when lenders fucked up, not the lenders.

    Now we are screwed because the political social engineering class and the lenders are there to protect each other. Yeah, the loudest complainers against the lenders happen to be the social engineers, but when they then crank out that 2K pages bullshit bill that leaves the framework for things to go wrong in place and created the whole “too big too fail” paradigm, we are going to get fucked.

    No, I blame the banks for managing their capital so poorly, they have to find as many ways to raise more of it.

    You mean giving loans to people they never should have because otherwise they would lose their FDIC insurance and not be able to sell their business or have someone else buy them? How logical of you!

    Any fucking way you cut this, it comes down to government trying to social engineer by law, then the usual progressive race hucksters and organizations forcing them to give loans to bad risks that never, ever, should have been given any kind of loan

    This is just not true. You act like the banks had no voice in this. No Lobby group, no PR arm, no friendly MSM media (fox?).no way to get the word out about the CRA concerns you voice over and over and over again. Concerns that apparently people analyzed and at least partially dismissed, but you ignore that as “nonsense”.

    Mike your desperation comes through loud & clear. The banks had a voice in this for sure, but that voice could not remove the fundamental and underlying condition, the root of the problem, the reason that the system is STILL prone to and likely to hit another crisis, the fact that the political social engineering aristocracy, in defiance to economic realty and the way the world works, persists on using the power of government to bludgeon reality into their vision of a “socially just” society. If they really had the upper hand, they would have told the assholes that persist on social engineering society to fuck off and die and NEVER, EVER, gone along. But you can keep harping on that tired line that they are as much to blame as the people that caused the problem. The more anyone does this, the more blatant it is that it’s ideology and not logic that is behind the desperate attempt to deflect the blame from the idiots that deserve it the most and need to be stopped from doing what they are doing.

    You are like a combination of Glenn Beck and Drumwaster. And it sucks, because when you arent ranting and raving, you make great posts about Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Al Alawaki, and other bad Obama Admin. decisions. I’m sorry, but you are not complety right on this one.

    This is the problem wityh progressivism as I see it these days: the fundamental problems are never admitted and directly addressed. Instead we try to social engineer around the margins and when it blows up, blame others. So far the facts prove my case far better than yours, man. Thanks for the comliment, but I would far more prefer you understand my concern about this than tell me you think I am being driven by ideology (which I am but for the right reasons).

    And it saddens me that smart people are so easily duped into blaming the banks and Wall Street when they just play within the framework our politicians create for them to do just that. This is a guarantee that we will have another crisis sooner than later, the tax payers will be on the hook for even more money then, and the same people that created the problem will, while foaming at the mouth in pretense of righteous anger and pretending to be coming to the aid of the poor people, demand the right to address these wrongs.

    You will be all surprised when it happens. I am sure you will again will have the perps spreading the blame to everyone but themselves. Me, I will be telling you “I told you so”.

    Thumb up 0

  18. AlexInCT *

    Have you actually read the 2000 pages or so of the CRA?

    No I have not. But that’s because neither the original CRA nor the amendments that followed amount to 2000 pages, and I think you obviously are confusing the Dodd-Frank bill – which is the 2000 page document I am referring to – with that. Par for the course though.

    Have you read all of clauses, footnotes, etc. enough to say with assurance that the housing crisis was the fault of lending money to minorities and the poor?

    Ah I get it! Unless I have read everything I am not allowed to speak about the obvious. Wish the politicians you are defending here where actually held to that standard. We would have fewer “we need to pass this bill to find out what’s in it” to worry about. Do you have to read every fucking clause, footnote, or “etc.” in any bill, 2 pages or 20,000 pages, if it is telling you that the earth is flat, to dispute that or point out that it is telling you something wrong?

    Anyway, now that I have demolished this ridiculous straw man of yours, let me point out that the fundamental problem – that the social engineers in government want to do things that defy the reality of the lending market – CAN NOT be overcome no matter how many clauses, footnotes, or other details you want to pretend would have mattered. Lenders where told they would lose their FDIC accreditation if they found even one case where someone they turned down was a minority and the reason was even marginally questionable. From there they devised the only vehicles and lending schemes that would somehow mitigate their risk to some degree. It didn’t work, and in fact ended up being catastrophic, because no matter how big a bill, with how many footnotes, clauses, or “etc.” you add, you are Not going to change the basics of economic reality.

    Thanks for trying.

    1.) Is the government bailing out banks, protecting bonuses by law, and removing debt with taxpayer money “capitalism?”

    No it is not! And please tell me WTF this has to do with the argument at hand? Maybe this is your youthful ignorance showing (yes, that’s a crack at you for calling other people old and insinuating that made you more knowledgeable, because you think you are hip, being marginally younger).That’s why I blame government for this! If you think the problem is the banks you are proving you have no clue about capitalism. Let me guess: setting up a straw man?

    What we have here is that capitalism has been corrupted by an all powerful government creating a dependency on them for any businesses to operate. Without the social engineers and other crooks in government having the power to force through legislation bad ideas and restrictions on capitalism, we would not have a crisis.

    2.) What is the total percentage of money lent to said money lent to poor and minorities on a pie chart?

    What a deceptive question. I see another straw man in the makes. PIE CHART OR ELSE! Your logic is weak.

    Here is the question you should ask: what percentage of bad loans – loans to people should never have been qualified for one in the first place, that obviously could not afford them, and the most important of all, had a proven credit problem indicating the loan was going to be a default sooner than later – tipped the scale and brought down the hosue of cards?

    It’s a given that we knew long before the crisis that lenders where being forced by the CRA to give loans to people that should never have gotten them, and that those numbers where climbing. You can see that, even through the deceptive language that tries to pin the blame on evil lenders while ignoring the fact that if they even once said “No way” and Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton waltzed in to collect a prize, they would be looking at losing their FDIC insurance, right?

    3.) My grandfather said “if you want to know where the source of the problem is, you follow the money.” Where is the concentration of money in the working economy? What business sector?

    Government. As an entity they have direct and indirect control of it all. And the social engineers want even more control of it. In fact, they believe it is their money, and they are gracious enough to let us keep some of it. As I said: banks can ONLY do what government permits them to do.

    My father told me that the biggest threat to capitalism and the people was and would always be government, and especially those in government that think they need to control outcome – pick the winners & losers – in the name of whatever “social justice” god they worshipped, because they felt life wasn’t fair. He would point to any communist country as proof. So far he remains right on the money.

    Third straw man burned down.

    If what you are alleging is true then why would a CEO get all nice and cozy with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Mozilo the same people that were going to destroy his business?

    You mean Dodd’s buddy Mozzilo? The guy that gave Dodd a super mortgage loan for his house in Ireland and a slew of other bennies, in addition to campaign funds, so Dodd would make sure his company was protected? The same Dodd that defended the CRA and accused anyone that pointed out it was bad of being racists? The one that immediately demanded after the crisis to be put in charge of writing the new set of rules to govern the industry? You know, the one that put in laws to give bonuses and make it even more necessary for these lenders to butter up the politicians to get favors?

    If what I am saying – I am not alleging squat – is true, preventing Dodd and people like him from being able to make deals with these guys, because they have the power to pass laws that seek to defy the reality of how things work and forcing everyone to depend on them to buy favors that benefit their businesses, IS key to stopping the practice. But to believe and make the argument that you stop that by letting people like Dodd write even more laws – laws that make it even more necessary for banks to come to him to buy favors I add – because the banks are to blame, is the height of stupidity.

    This is akin to making the argument that the rape victim is to blame for the rape because she dressed too “hawt”, and that the rapist should then be put in charge of determining what she should wear. Nothing can go wrong there.

    Why would he be banned from being a CEO of any company henceforth for doing exactly what he was “FORCED” to do by the government?

    It’s called throwing someone under the bus to deflect blame? I wish Frank & Dodd, along with a slew of other crooks, could also be banned from ever being in government or lobbying. Did you see any of them pay for what they did? And no, Dodd didn’t pay: he chose not to run because he didn’t need the grief and he is now making even more money than he did before.

    Your simplistic solution rules out the actual factors on the ground that are attributed to the mess.

    It’s now simplistic to prevent the people with the power to create laws that fly in the face of reality from doing so instead of blaming those they write the laws to affect and then demonize when things go wrong? Heh! I would love to hear your solution. My bet is that it is more of the stupid same.

    Sure, you can lay some of the blame on the CRA, but that’s not at all the major factors.

    I lay the blame on what caused the problem: the CRA and the idea that lending should ignore risk, in the name of social justice or whatever other idiotic idea you can conjure up. It IS the ONLY factor that matters. It’s the underlying and fundamental problem. Everything else is pure and simple bullshit deflection. The people that have this power are the problem. Again: if lenders had not been told to loan money to people that could not pay it back, we would not be here.

    Mark my words: we will have another crisis precisely because people that believe like you have fallen for the clap-trap propaganda by the ones that want to keep the power and blamed the lenders, have allowed them to do more of the same.

    The simple truth is that everyone’s hands were in the cookie jar and everyone was turning a blind eye to bubble that was being created.

    Cookie Jar? How “capitalist” of you to talk about cookie jars that way. Ah, I am seeing what this is about now: you are pissed at the banks because they have money and tried to make money instead of.., well in stead of whatever! How conservative of you, BTW. Seriously, if you believe in capitalism, do you envision a scenario where banks would have invented subprime loans if they would then go belly up when that check was cashed? These lenders should have simply all walked away from the shitty laws and gone into some other business. How dare they come up with subprime mortgages to try and control the risk of being forced to loan money to unqualified people that then defaulted!

    Maybe the problem is that you think banks should behave like charitable institutions and forget that they ARE businesses and in the money making business. Maybe the problem is that you think the banks control the politicians instead of the reality that it is the other way around. The problem isn’t that banks can cozy up to politicians for favors, but that politicians have all but made it necessary to cozy up to them to stay in business? And when that’s the case, thinking that politicians will do the due diligence of mitigating that situation, with them raking in so much cash and getting so much power, instead of producing things like the Dodd-Frank bill, is tantamount to insane. Doubly so for a supposed conservative. Think about that. And please explain to me how all this additional regulation is going to end up making banks behave in a more “capitalist” way?

    What baffles me about your logic is that you have this hatred of all things government, yet you don’t seem to want to come to grips with the fact that banks and government are kissing each other goodnight every evening. You prefer to only see the government angle.

    While laughing at the irony of hearing you talk about how I seem to have a hatred for anything, after you leave no doubt you are beyond hate on this, I still feel compelled to point out that you got it wrong. I have hatred of a government that thinks it is its function to level the field and has thus appropriated itself power to do so. That’s what creates the situation where they end up kissing each other good night, as you say, with government in the role of the one doing the fucking of both the banks and the people. Your misdirected anger at the banks serves only to allow these people in government to write more laws giving them more power over banks and necessitating even more kissing followed by more abuse. You don’t see that?

    Even now, banks are not making money being banks.

    Maybe I am the ignorant one and do lack the understanding of how banks make money “being banks”, so I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to explain this one to me? This aught to be fun.

    They are making money buying interest free treasury notes (with TARP money) and then making money off of interest. Printing money at the hands of *government* yet you are taking a side of “this is capitalism and you’re all commies for disagreeing with me.”

    Actually I think this is irrelevant to the argument of what’s the underlying problem and how to solve it, based on who and what is to blame for the crisis and the fiscal reality it created. In fact, I see it as an outright distraction that shifts the focus from where it needs to be and thus only serves to allow the people that created the problem in the first place to make it worse with new legislation that purports to reign in the evil banks.

    BTW, you do know why banks are currently doing what they are doing, including the buying of treasury notes to earn interest that pisses you off so much? Here is a clue: 2000 pages of regulation Dodd & Frank just put out. Looking at them or others of their ilk to solve this is just insane.

    Coming from having direct family members working in both the biggest real estate lenders, and the biggest bank, I would say you are very misguided in your opinion.

    Since I can not verify your claim I will leave it at that being nothing but more bad opinions.

    You assume so much on one aspect, and disregard any other aspects that anyone brings up.

    Holy fuck. What am I assuming? Are you saying that I am assuming that a law that threatens any lending institution’s access to FDIC insurance and basically makes the institution unsellable and unable to buy anything else, if they basically didn’t accept the liability of handing out terrible loans is a problem? Are you saying that I am assuming that law came from politicians that are social engineering and am wrong on that? Are you saying that I am assuming banks then responded as best they could with subprime mortgages while knowing that these where crap, when they had alternatives that apparently only you seem aware of? Am I assuming that blaming banks and letting the very politicians responsible for the problem write more stupid laws, wont lead to more & bigger problems, because there is no historic precedent to that? Am I missing anything else?

    Fuck you are the one making an ass out of you and me here.

    Again, this is “I am a linker, not a thinker” mentality.

    WTF kind is stupid is this shit? You obviously are doing no thinking at all.

    I particularly enjoy when you dismiss out of hand the links you are given, but then expect, line for line, acknowledgement of the links you approve of.

    Talk about straw men. Record for a single post I bet. Maybe you can give me an example of where I dismissed something I didn’t provide evidence of bias, and thus a good reason to dismiss, for?

    You display no ability to read and discern opinions,

    Opinions are like assholes. I am trying to deal with facts, what is the problem, and how to solve it for real. You I suspect have a bone to pick with banks and are hoping the politicians are going to address that. What is it? You tried to refinance or owe more on your home than it is worth? Applied for a loan and was denied? Are pissed that they plan to charge you to use your debit card? What is it?

    you are simply seeking a link on the internet that chimes with your McDonalds Happy Meal view point that has been sold to you.

    You pretend to be a conservative, make like you are hopping mad at the banks, all so you can demand politicians write even more crony capitalism laws, in the name of championing capitalism of all things. This doesn’t square. Which fast food meal does that equate to? Or is that more like a shit sandwich?

    Some conservative this is. Willing to ignore facts, and support big gummint if it chimes with the radio shows that you listen to.

    I am totally conservative about this. I am blaming the real culprits and not pretending banks are to blame so I can ask social engineering politicians to pass more laws, for whatever personal reason, like you are – while pretending more of the same old law making by that big gummint you accuse me of supporting, the same kind of law making that caused the problems in the first place – will miraculously fix things, this time. At least I understand where Mike is coming from. But you can keep pretending you are the upright conservative and I am not, after accusing me, who is demanding less government involvement while you are championing the exact opposite, and then with a striaght face. I think the people that know better can judge easily who is the conservative.

    Fuck, you are easy to smack around. I almost feel guilty. Like clubbing a baby seal. Almost. I am looking forward to you digging your hole deeper.

    Thumb up 0