GOProud's shame! (Can you hear the "sucking" noise?)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 3:31 PM GMT
    Well, looks like "Gay conservatives" have crossed the line...

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/21/gay-conservatives-target-gay-congressman/#more-130186

    ...and are now firmly seated in the Judas Iscariot suite, in Hell's basement, right next to other traitors, lesser betrayers, and the "grand betrayer" itself.

    Looks like gay conservatives would rather suck up to the Right-Wing Tea Baggers who would send them to "camp" where they can frolick with other hypocrites before their "delousing" and group orgy in the "sauna".

    Congratulations "Gay conservatives", you've now turned against your own, and those who support equality.
    We've truly arrived as an LGBT minority.

    Shame!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 4:29 PM GMT
    What a bunch of asshats
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 4:57 PM GMT
    And rightfully so. It makes no difference whether Barney Frank is gay or not, he is the worst of the worst when it comes to corrupt politicians. He was instrumental in creating the housing crisis and financial meltdown that occurred under Bush's watch.

    His stance on "equality" doesn't measure up to the damage he has caused. His pursuit of "equality" is what drove the government to mandate that banks lower their lending standards and look what it created, LESS equality.

    Get the facts.

    The sooner Barney Frank gets out of there the better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 4:58 PM GMT
    Wan2GetBigR saidBarney Frank should have been gone a long time ago. This is the first time I ever remember seeing so many "Barney for Congress" ads on television. He's definitely running a little scared, as this race with Sean Bielat has been tighter than most he's had to face.


    So you'd rather have an avowedly anti-gay Congressman than Barney Frank? Who is also very likely to put the country back on the road to utter financial decimation as Bush did? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 5:00 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Wan2GetBigR saidBarney Frank should have been gone a long time ago. This is the first time I ever remember seeing so many "Barney for Congress" ads on television. He's definitely running a little scared, as this race with Sean Bielat has been tighter than most he's had to face.


    So you'd rather have an avowedly anti-gay Congressman than Barney Frank? Who is also very likely to put the country back on the road to utter financial decimation as Bush did? icon_rolleyes.gif


    You mean the financial decimation pushed for and caused by liberals but PERMITTED and encouraged by Bush? I like how you conveniently want to lay all of the blame Bush for his irresponsible behavior in letting the kind of policies YOU WORSHIP be enacted during his term.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 5:06 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    Wan2GetBigR saidBarney Frank should have been gone a long time ago. This is the first time I ever remember seeing so many "Barney for Congress" ads on television. He's definitely running a little scared, as this race with Sean Bielat has been tighter than most he's had to face.


    So you'd rather have an avowedly anti-gay Congressman than Barney Frank? Who is also very likely to put the country back on the road to utter financial decimation as Bush did? icon_rolleyes.gif


    You mean the financial decimation pushed for and caused by liberals but PERMITTED and encouraged by Bush? I like how you conveniently want to Blame Bush for his irresponsible behavior in letting the kind of policies YOU WORSHIP to be enacted during his tenure.


    The roots of the financial collapse date back to Reagan and the complete failure of his and Bush I's administration's to regulate a derivatives market that grew for a few billion in the 1980s to trillions in at the time of the crash. Please read up on your history of the Financial Services Modernization Act (yes, signed by Clinton but WRITTEN by Republican Sen. Phil Gramm), and how Gramm's wife, who served on the Audit Committee for Enron when it collapsed due to financial hi-jinx, refused to admit that this enormous market required any regulation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 5:09 PM GMT
    Wan2GetBigR said
    Christian73 said
    So you'd rather have an avowedly anti-gay Congressman than Barney Frank? Who is also very likely to put the country back on the road to utter financial decimation as Bush did? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Sean Bielat is avowedly anti gay? icon_rolleyes.gif

    mocktwinkie saidAnd rightfully so. It makes no difference whether Barney Frank is gay or not, he is the worst of the worst when it comes to corrupt politicians. He was instrumental in creating the housing crisis and financial meltdown that occurred under Bush's watch.

    His stance on "equality" doesn't measure up to the damage he has caused. His pursuit of "equality" is what drove the government to mandate that banks lower their lending standards and look what it created, LESS equality.

    Get the facts.

    The sooner Barney Frank gets out of there the better.


    QTF


    http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2010/09/11320/

    [quote][cite][/cite]He’s a doctrinaire social conservative — a serious Catholic, he wouldn’t answer whether he would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. And he said he opposes not only gay marriage but also civil unions and gays serving openly in the military.[/quote]


    Who is really surprised though? These are the same people that hosted Ann Coulter.They deny that conservatives hate them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 5:11 PM GMT
    Wan2GetBigR said
    Christian73 said
    So you'd rather have an avowedly anti-gay Congressman than Barney Frank? Who is also very likely to put the country back on the road to utter financial decimation as Bush did? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Sean Bielat is avowedly anti gay? icon_rolleyes.gif

    mocktwinkie saidAnd rightfully so. It makes no difference whether Barney Frank is gay or not, he is the worst of the worst when it comes to corrupt politicians. He was instrumental in creating the housing crisis and financial meltdown that occurred under Bush's watch.

    His stance on "equality" doesn't measure up to the damage he has caused. His pursuit of "equality" is what drove the government to mandate that banks lower their lending standards and look what it created, LESS equality.

    Get the facts.

    The sooner Barney Frank gets out of there the better.


    QTF


    Mocktwinkie is under the false impression that CRA caused the meltdown, which is utter fiction, pushed by right-wingers who don't like regulation. The housing crisis is the result of a range of complicated and history actions that cannot be reduced to a sound bite. But CRA was not the cause. The cause - as in teh case of the S&L scandal, Enron, WorldComm, etc. - was corporate greed.


    Yes. Sean Bielat is avowedly anti-gay. From his website:

    Sean BielatDon’t Ask Don’t Tell

    I support the right of the military, not Congress, to determine policy relative to gays serving openly in the U.S. Armed Forces.

    Gay rights activists argue that gays and lesbians have served proudly and deserve to serve openly. As a member of the Marine Reserve who has served on active duty, I honor every soldier who takes up arms for our country. Each deserves our respect and gratitude. The American military, however, does not exist to support the individuality and diversity of soldiers but to protect the American homeland and people. Individual rights and preferences in the armed forces are always secondary to mission accomplishment, as they must be.

    If and when military leaders, free from political coercion and after studying the issue, believe that gays serving openly will enhance, or have no impact on, our military capability, I will support their decision.

    Marriage

    I have a traditional understanding of marriage. I believe that any efforts to change the way marriage has been legally defined should be subject to either a legislative or referendum process. I also believe that marriage should remain a state issue.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 5:30 PM GMT
    Why Frank? He is up in the polls by 20% in the most recent poll. A look at his district and a purchase in that television market is just fucking stupid. There are about eight districts in that single market. So 7/8 viewers wont actually be able to vote against Frank.

    So why do it?

    Because, I imagine, conservatives who have run on a platform of "homosexuals are a diseased group of pedophiles who want to recruit your kids and destroy your marriage" don't like GOProud. They don't like the DADT court case they championed. They don't like that they are trying to steel some of their spotlight in this narrow tent party. So, GOProud is showing that their conservative principles are more important than their sexuality and they are willing to spend the money to prove it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 5:35 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    Wan2GetBigR saidBarney Frank should have been gone a long time ago. This is the first time I ever remember seeing so many "Barney for Congress" ads on television. He's definitely running a little scared, as this race with Sean Bielat has been tighter than most he's had to face.


    So you'd rather have an avowedly anti-gay Congressman than Barney Frank? Who is also very likely to put the country back on the road to utter financial decimation as Bush did? icon_rolleyes.gif


    You mean the financial decimation pushed for and caused by liberals but PERMITTED and encouraged by Bush? I like how you conveniently want to Blame Bush for his irresponsible behavior in letting the kind of policies YOU WORSHIP to be enacted during his tenure.


    The roots of the financial collapse date back to Reagan and the complete failure of his and Bush I's administration's to regulate a derivatives market that grew for a few billion in the 1980s to trillions in at the time of the crash. Please read up on your history of the Financial Services Modernization Act (yes, signed by Clinton but WRITTEN by Republican Sen. Phil Gramm), and how Gramm's wife, who served on the Audit Committee for Enron when it collapsed due to financial hi-jinx, refused to admit that this enormous market required any regulation.


    I'm familiar with all of it and its speculation and conjecture - I'm referring to hard facts and what directly CAUSED the housing crisis, not this "too much money was sitting around" horsecrap . These "roots", as you refer to them, would have meant nothing if the government didn't direct fannie and gang to push for more subprime lending at the direct risk of taxpayer dollars in the name of doing society good. People were allowed to buy homes they couldn't afford and the whole thing backfired - PERIOD, END OF EFFING STORY. And your hero, Barney Frank, was the key instrumental figure behind this all happening. So quit blaming Reagan and Bush. And every time you routinely lie about who is to blame for the crisis, I will call you out on it.
  • yankeesblazer...

    Posts: 243

    Oct 22, 2010 5:35 PM GMT
    GAMRican saidWell, looks like "Gay conservatives" have crossed the line...

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/21/gay-conservatives-target-gay-congressman/#more-130186

    ...and are now firmly seated in the Judas Iscariot suite, in Hell's basement, right next to other traitors, lesser betrayers, and the "grand betrayer" itself.

    Congratulations "Gay conservatives", you've now turned against your own, and those who support equality.
    We've truly arrived as an LGBT minority.

    Shame!



    So, because I'm gay, I am supposed to blindly support any gay candidate?

    What a joke. This is America, and people have the right to think for themselves. Just because you disagree with that fundamental idea doesn't give you the right to pass judgement on these people.

    Is an African American obligated to vote for any African American candidate simply because of their race? Is an Asian American candidate obligated to vote for any Asian American candidate because of their race? What about Hispanics and/or Native Americans?

    You know, it might shock you, but it IS possible to be gay and vote against a gay candidate because you disagree with them overall on the ISSUES. Even if I support Frank's stance on gay marriage, does that mean I should overlook the other 98% of things he stands for and blindly check off his name? Please, this is a joke.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 5:37 PM GMT
    Wan2GetBigR saidI don't see him being anti gay because of his traditional understanding of marriage, nor his belief that it should be a state issue. And he is running in a state where gay marriage is legal.

    And he said, "Individual rights and preferences in the armed forces are always secondary to mission accomplishment, as they must be. If and when military leaders, free from political coercion and after studying the issue, believe that gays serving openly will enhance, or have no impact on, our military capability, I will support their decision."


    I find your reading far too generous.

    His platform is typical of Republicans running in very blue districts. It tries to walk a very narrow line of acceptance between the usual GOP "fags don't deserve rights" crowd and the moderate Dems who have no problem with LGBT rights but they aren't top issues for them. If history is an indicator, people such as this will stop paying lip services to LGBT rights as soon as they come up for a vote.

    Further, that bit about "I have a traditional understanding of marriage. I believe that any efforts to change the way marriage has been legally defined should be subject to either a legislative or referendum process. I also believe that marriage should remain a state issue." is a fucking disgrace.

    1) Read the constitution and see what role courts have. It is something he should be aware of as a candidate for federal office.
    2) Marriage is not a state issue. Of the 1,200+ rights marriage grants to a couple over 1,000 are federal. This is something he should be aware of as anyone interested in LGBT rights or with a desire to serve federal office.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 5:44 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Wan2GetBigR said
    Christian73 said
    So you'd rather have an avowedly anti-gay Congressman than Barney Frank? Who is also very likely to put the country back on the road to utter financial decimation as Bush did? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Sean Bielat is avowedly anti gay? icon_rolleyes.gif

    mocktwinkie saidAnd rightfully so. It makes no difference whether Barney Frank is gay or not, he is the worst of the worst when it comes to corrupt politicians. He was instrumental in creating the housing crisis and financial meltdown that occurred under Bush's watch.

    His stance on "equality" doesn't measure up to the damage he has caused. His pursuit of "equality" is what drove the government to mandate that banks lower their lending standards and look what it created, LESS equality.

    Get the facts.

    The sooner Barney Frank gets out of there the better.


    QTF


    Mocktwinkie is under the false impression that CRA caused the meltdown, which is utter fiction, pushed by right-wingers who don't like regulation. The housing crisis is the result of a range of complicated and history actions that cannot be reduced to a sound bite. But CRA was not the cause. The cause - as in teh case of the S&L scandal, Enron, WorldComm, etc. - was corporate greed.


    Yes. Sean Bielat is avowedly anti-gay. From his website:

    Sean BielatDon’t Ask Don’t Tell

    I support the right of the military, not Congress, to determine policy relative to gays serving openly in the U.S. Armed Forces.

    Gay rights activists argue that gays and lesbians have served proudly and deserve to serve openly. As a member of the Marine Reserve who has served on active duty, I honor every soldier who takes up arms for our country. Each deserves our respect and gratitude. The American military, however, does not exist to support the individuality and diversity of soldiers but to protect the American homeland and people. Individual rights and preferences in the armed forces are always secondary to mission accomplishment, as they must be.

    If and when military leaders, free from political coercion and after studying the issue, believe that gays serving openly will enhance, or have no impact on, our military capability, I will support their decision.

    Marriage

    I have a traditional understanding of marriage. I believe that any efforts to change the way marriage has been legally defined should be subject to either a legislative or referendum process. I also believe that marriage should remain a state issue.



    Your pathetic attempts to blur what caused the financial meltdown isn't fooling anyone but yourself and a few people here who really aren't acquainted with it. Over-regulation to begin with is to blame because the banks are very much controlled by government decisions in exchange for the government backing up any bad outcomes with taxpayer dollars. The government directed that the banks lower their lending standards with no risk to them. This was not a matter of deregulation. If the banks had not been directed by congress to engage in such risky practices they never would have taken them on to begin with knowing that they would not get bailed out. And WHY did this take place? Because do-gooders like barney frank wanted to create home ownership opportunities to people who couldn't afford them in the first place. It's basically like trying to fabricate equality knowing the whole thing will be unsustainable and end up hurting the unqualified buyers in the long-run even more.

    Greed is as good a force as any to help discourage businesses from taking risks that aren't in the best interest of long-term profitability, and going under certainly isn't the ideal scenario.

    So quit pretending that deregulation is to blame, it was nothing of the sort.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 5:50 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    Wan2GetBigR saidBarney Frank should have been gone a long time ago. This is the first time I ever remember seeing so many "Barney for Congress" ads on television. He's definitely running a little scared, as this race with Sean Bielat has been tighter than most he's had to face.


    So you'd rather have an avowedly anti-gay Congressman than Barney Frank? Who is also very likely to put the country back on the road to utter financial decimation as Bush did? icon_rolleyes.gif


    You mean the financial decimation pushed for and caused by liberals but PERMITTED and encouraged by Bush? I like how you conveniently want to Blame Bush for his irresponsible behavior in letting the kind of policies YOU WORSHIP to be enacted during his tenure.


    The roots of the financial collapse date back to Reagan and the complete failure of his and Bush I's administration's to regulate a derivatives market that grew for a few billion in the 1980s to trillions in at the time of the crash. Please read up on your history of the Financial Services Modernization Act (yes, signed by Clinton but WRITTEN by Republican Sen. Phil Gramm), and how Gramm's wife, who served on the Audit Committee for Enron when it collapsed due to financial hi-jinx, refused to admit that this enormous market required any regulation.


    I'm familiar with all of it and its speculation and conjecture - I'm referring to hard facts and what directly CAUSED the housing crisis, not this "too much money was sitting around" horsecrap . These "roots", as you refer to them, would have meant nothing if the government didn't mandate that fannie and gang push for more subprime lending at the direct risk of taxpayer dollars. People were allowed to buy homes they couldn't afford and the whole thing backfired - PERIOD, END OF EFFING STORY. And your hero, Barney Frank, was the key instrumental figure behind this all happening. So quit blaming Reagan and Bush. And every time you routinely lie about who is to blame for the crisis, I will call you out on it.


    You're an idiot because you don't even know the basics about the law you're trying to blame the crisis on.

    First, the government didn't mandate that any loans be made to anyone because CRA was nonbinding.

    Second, and more importantly, the vast majority of sub-prime loans were not made by banks that fell under the purview of CRA to begin with but by independent mortgage lenders like Countrywide.

    Third, the mortgages themselves did not cause the crisis. Rather is was the rampant speculation through derivatives, CDOs, CDSs, and over-leveraging that cause what might have been an isolated problem for sub-prime lenders and turned it into an international financial crisis. Those are the facts, which you - like many ideologues - refuse to accept.

    Finally, you hilarious accusation that policies I support lead to the crisis is your most ridiculous claim yet.

    I am for constrained, regulated capitalism. If my views ruled the day, the entire underpinning of the crisis would never have happened. Rather, it's your desire for unrestrained and, indeed, predatory capitalism that led to the crisis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 5:53 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    Wan2GetBigR said
    Christian73 said
    So you'd rather have an avowedly anti-gay Congressman than Barney Frank? Who is also very likely to put the country back on the road to utter financial decimation as Bush did? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Sean Bielat is avowedly anti gay? icon_rolleyes.gif

    mocktwinkie saidAnd rightfully so. It makes no difference whether Barney Frank is gay or not, he is the worst of the worst when it comes to corrupt politicians. He was instrumental in creating the housing crisis and financial meltdown that occurred under Bush's watch.

    His stance on "equality" doesn't measure up to the damage he has caused. His pursuit of "equality" is what drove the government to mandate that banks lower their lending standards and look what it created, LESS equality.

    Get the facts.

    The sooner Barney Frank gets out of there the better.


    QTF


    Mocktwinkie is under the false impression that CRA caused the meltdown, which is utter fiction, pushed by right-wingers who don't like regulation. The housing crisis is the result of a range of complicated and history actions that cannot be reduced to a sound bite. But CRA was not the cause. The cause - as in teh case of the S&L scandal, Enron, WorldComm, etc. - was corporate greed.


    Yes. Sean Bielat is avowedly anti-gay. From his website:

    Sean BielatDon’t Ask Don’t Tell

    I support the right of the military, not Congress, to determine policy relative to gays serving openly in the U.S. Armed Forces.

    Gay rights activists argue that gays and lesbians have served proudly and deserve to serve openly. As a member of the Marine Reserve who has served on active duty, I honor every soldier who takes up arms for our country. Each deserves our respect and gratitude. The American military, however, does not exist to support the individuality and diversity of soldiers but to protect the American homeland and people. Individual rights and preferences in the armed forces are always secondary to mission accomplishment, as they must be.

    If and when military leaders, free from political coercion and after studying the issue, believe that gays serving openly will enhance, or have no impact on, our military capability, I will support their decision.

    Marriage

    I have a traditional understanding of marriage. I believe that any efforts to change the way marriage has been legally defined should be subject to either a legislative or referendum process. I also believe that marriage should remain a state issue.



    Your pathetic attempts to blur what caused the financial meltdown isn't fooling anyone but yourself and a few people here who really aren't acquainted with it. Over-regulation to begin with is to blame because the banks are very much controlled by government decisions in exchange for the government backing up any bad outcomes with taxpayer dollars. The government directed that the banks lower their lending standards with no risk to them. This was not a matter of deregulation. If the banks had not been directed by congress to engage in such risky practices they never would have taken them on to begin with knowing that they would not get bailed out. And WHY did this take place? Because do-gooders like barney frank wanted to create home ownership opportunities to people who couldn't afford them in the first place. It's basically like trying to fabricate equality knowing the whole thing will be unsustainable and end up hurting the unqualified buyers in the long-run even more.

    Greed is as good a force as any to help discourage businesses from taking risks that aren't in the best interest of long-term profitability, and going under certainly isn't the ideal scenario.

    So quit pretending that deregulation is to blame, it was nothing of the sort.


    Dude - If you're just going to regurgitate the same Republican talking points over and over, we're not really debate, so much as I'm watching you have a philosophical wanking session.

    And you can't seem to understand that greed interferes with "long-term profitability" of which we have countless examples.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 6:13 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    Wan2GetBigR saidBarney Frank should have been gone a long time ago. This is the first time I ever remember seeing so many "Barney for Congress" ads on television. He's definitely running a little scared, as this race with Sean Bielat has been tighter than most he's had to face.


    So you'd rather have an avowedly anti-gay Congressman than Barney Frank? Who is also very likely to put the country back on the road to utter financial decimation as Bush did? icon_rolleyes.gif


    You mean the financial decimation pushed for and caused by liberals but PERMITTED and encouraged by Bush? I like how you conveniently want to Blame Bush for his irresponsible behavior in letting the kind of policies YOU WORSHIP to be enacted during his tenure.


    The roots of the financial collapse date back to Reagan and the complete failure of his and Bush I's administration's to regulate a derivatives market that grew for a few billion in the 1980s to trillions in at the time of the crash. Please read up on your history of the Financial Services Modernization Act (yes, signed by Clinton but WRITTEN by Republican Sen. Phil Gramm), and how Gramm's wife, who served on the Audit Committee for Enron when it collapsed due to financial hi-jinx, refused to admit that this enormous market required any regulation.


    I'm familiar with all of it and its speculation and conjecture - I'm referring to hard facts and what directly CAUSED the housing crisis, not this "too much money was sitting around" horsecrap . These "roots", as you refer to them, would have meant nothing if the government didn't mandate that fannie and gang push for more subprime lending at the direct risk of taxpayer dollars. People were allowed to buy homes they couldn't afford and the whole thing backfired - PERIOD, END OF EFFING STORY. And your hero, Barney Frank, was the key instrumental figure behind this all happening. So quit blaming Reagan and Bush. And every time you routinely lie about who is to blame for the crisis, I will call you out on it.


    You're an idiot because you don't even know the basics about the law you're trying to blame the crisis on.

    First, the government didn't mandate that any loans be made to anyone because CRA was nonbinding.

    Second, and more importantly, the vast majority of sub-prime loans were not made by banks that fell under the purview of CRA to begin with but by independent mortgage lenders like Countrywide.

    Third, the mortgages themselves did not cause the crisis. Rather is was the rampant speculation through derivatives, CDOs, CDSs, and over-leveraging that cause what might have been an isolated problem for sub-prime lenders and turned it into an international financial crisis. Those are the facts, which you - like many ideologues - refuse to accept.

    Finally, you hilarious accusation that policies I support lead to the crisis is your most ridiculous claim yet.

    I am for constrained, regulated capitalism. If my views ruled the day, the entire underpinning of the crisis would never have happened. Rather, it's your desire for unrestrained and, indeed, predatory capitalism that led to the crisis.


    Why do I need to keep repeating myself? I refer you to another thread where I delineated specifically what was to blame.

    "The government should not control/regulate banks in the way that they do to begin with. Since they DO have extensive regulations over banks then it is important for them to maintain certain standards for the banks to follow since the fate of the banks is linked to the government and ultimately the taxpayers.

    You can’t responsibly deregulate financial institutions without first addressing the added risk to the taxpayers, who are indirectly liable for their failures (FDIC - from which a great extent of bank failure funding comes from taxpayer guarantees in addition to the FDIC insurance premiums that banking institutions are required to pay in order to be eligible members) and secondly requiring a reduction (if not elimination) of the coverage liability available through FDIC / taxpayer guarantees when actuarial figures would easily show that the increased risk of pursuant deregulated activity (derivatives, investment banking, security underwriting and speculation, variable rate mortgages, sub-prime mortgages, etc) was HIGHLY probable to create either 1) a massive real estate bubble or 2) the partial (if not entire) collapse of the banking system as we know it resulting in the bankruptcy of FDIC and the potential for trillions of government borrowing to keep the financial system "solvent" due to the disgustingly greedy and naive behavior of politicians and investment bankers. It was a marriage between greed and do-gooderism.

    This is not at all dissimilar from having the government mandate that a private business should pursue riskier business practices, while at the same time having the taxpayers guarantee the added insurance risk for these practices. In the end, it becomes a "nothing to lose" scenario for the banks and politicians, because so few are held accountable for their losses and the average taxpayer flips the bill in the end. But your track record has shown that you could care less about the taxpayers - which, as a group, are a vaporous apparition to left-wing do-gooders like yourself."

    1. I've never said CRA was the cause of the housing crisis, but it definitely played a big part. The government directed that fannie and freddie which held MOST of the loans, push into greater supbrime lending. This is a fact.

    2. It is true that other banks were forced to engage in the same risky practices in order to keep up with the competition and keep their shareholders happy. The environment which led to this toxic behavior would not have happened if the government hadn't gotten involved in the first place. Let's be clear, it was government INVOLVEMENT that created this, not government deregulation.

    3. The banks are implicitly backed by the government, the market also assumes that they are.

    4. And yes, the policies you support, the do-gooderism, the affirmative action, all of the ideas that propel your world are what made people like Barney Frank and other leftwing loonies push to get people who couldn't afford homes approved. Quit lying to yourself and everyone else. You cannot convince me for one moment that you would not have supported the very same kind of irresponsible lending in the name of doing good. But now it makes for a convenient punching bag because it occurred during Bush. And yes, a big part of the blame rests on his shoulders, but just remember that most of it rests on the shoulders of people YOU SUPPORT: Barney Frank.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 6:30 PM GMT
    Christian73,

    Let's make this really really simple. Because we could go back and forth forever saying "I'm right you're wrong".

    I want you to answer me this: if the government had not gotten involved and interfered in the natural flow of the market by directing banks to lower their lending standards while simultaneously guaranteeing the added insurance risks, would the crisis have happened? (Your whole argument is that deregulation is what caused the crisis).

    I already know the answer but I'd love to hear yours.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 6:36 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWhy do I need to keep repeating myself? I refer you to another thread where I delineated specifically what was to blame.

    "The government should not control/regulate banks in the way that they do to begin with. Since they DO have extensive regulations over banks then it is important for them to maintain certain standards for the banks to follow since the fate of the banks is linked to the government and ultimately the taxpayers.

    You can’t responsibly deregulate financial institutions without first addressing the added risk to the taxpayers, who are indirectly liable for their failures (FDIC - from which a great extent of bank failure funding comes from taxpayer guarantees in addition to the FDIC insurance premiums that banking institutions are required to pay in order to be eligible members) and secondly requiring a reduction (if not elimination) of the coverage liability available through FDIC / taxpayer guarantees when actuarial figures would easily show that the increased risk of pursuant deregulated activity (derivatives, investment banking, security underwriting and speculation, variable rate mortgages, sub-prime mortgages, etc) was HIGHLY probable to create either 1) a massive real estate bubble or 2) the partial (if not entire) collapse of the banking system as we know it resulting in the bankruptcy of FDIC and the potential for trillions of government borrowing to keep the financial system "solvent" due to the disgustingly greedy and naive behavior of politicians and investment bankers. It was a marriage between greed and do-gooderism.

    This is not at all dissimilar from having the government mandate that a private business should pursue riskier business practices, while at the same time having the taxpayers guarantee the added insurance risk for these practices. In the end, it becomes a "nothing to lose" scenario for the banks and politicians, because so few are held accountable for their losses and the average taxpayer flips the bill in the end. But your track record has shown that you could care less about the taxpayers - which, as a group, are a vaporous apparition to left-wing do-gooders like yourself."

    1. I've never said CRA was the cause of the housing crisis, but it definitely played a big part. The government directed that fannie and freddie which held MOST of the loans, push into greater supbrime lending. This is a fact.

    2. It is true that other banks were forced to engage in the same risky practices in order to keep up with the competition and keep their shareholders happy. The environment which led to this toxic behavior would not have happened if the government hadn't gotten involved in the first place. Let's be clear, it was government INVOLVEMENT that created this, not government deregulation.

    3. The banks are implicitly backed by the government, the market also assumes that they are.

    4. And yes, the policies you support, the do-gooderism, the affirmative action, all of the ideas that propel your world are what made people like Barney Frank and other leftwing loonies push to get people who couldn't afford homes approved. Quit lying to yourself and everyone else. You cannot convince me for one moment that you would not have supported the very same kind of irresponsible lending in the name of doing good. But now it makes for a convenient punching bag because it occurred during Bush. And yes, a big part of the blame rests on his shoulders, but just remember that most of it rests on the shoulders of people YOU SUPPORT: Barney Frank.


    You keep repeating yourself maybe as a way to reassure yourself that you're correct when the facts and history do not support your conclusions at all.

    1) Please provide a source for your claim that the government "pushed Fannie and Freddie into sub-prime lending."

    2) It is ridiculous to say that over-regulation caused an entire industry to blow itself up in order to keep up with the Joneses. Even if we assume that CRA created an atmosphere for this kind of competition, until 1999 Glass-Steagal prevented them from doing so, but in a free market craze led by Phil Gramm and his lovely wife, Glass Steagal was repealed by the Republican congress. Had Glass Steagal remained in place, the separation of insurance, commercial and investment banking would have prevented the implosion. You must also include the ramptant fraud engaged in by the sub-prime lenders in the form of no-doc loans, lying about the income of lendees, and not informing lendees of ARMs and Option-ARMs, whereby the executives and employees of sub-prime stole money from the working poor to enrich themselves.

    In short, you can either believe that greed is a motivating factor and the government must regulate finance to ensure that short-term greed does no imperil the economy, or you can argue against regulation because the market will correct itself since businesses will act in their best interest. You can't have it both ways.

    3) Again, prior to the free market push to repeal Glass Steagal this was not the case.

    4) This is silly libertarian clap-trap trying to blame systemic moral hazard on its victims while letting those who profited from it off the hook. And, no, I would never have supported sub-prime lending through for-profit corporate entities. There are other ways to increase home ownership without involved a profit-motive or allowing financiers to enrich themselves on the backs of poor people. Much like Obama's removal of financial middle-men from the federal student loan program, a similar program of lending at low interest rates to poor families via a means test could have been implemented. And, given the surplus of housing, and the extreme foreclosure rates, I would argue it makes sense to institute one now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 6:37 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    Wan2GetBigR saidBarney Frank should have been gone a long time ago. This is the first time I ever remember seeing so many "Barney for Congress" ads on television. He's definitely running a little scared, as this race with Sean Bielat has been tighter than most he's had to face.


    So you'd rather have an avowedly anti-gay Congressman than Barney Frank? Who is also very likely to put the country back on the road to utter financial decimation as Bush did? icon_rolleyes.gif


    You mean the financial decimation pushed for and caused by liberals but PERMITTED and encouraged by Bush? I like how you conveniently want to Blame Bush for his irresponsible behavior in letting the kind of policies YOU WORSHIP to be enacted during his tenure.


    The roots of the financial collapse date back to Reagan and the complete failure of his and Bush I's administration's to regulate a derivatives market that grew for a few billion in the 1980s to trillions in at the time of the crash. Please read up on your history of the Financial Services Modernization Act (yes, signed by Clinton but WRITTEN by Republican Sen. Phil Gramm), and how Gramm's wife, who served on the Audit Committee for Enron when it collapsed due to financial hi-jinx, refused to admit that this enormous market required any regulation.


    I'm familiar with all of it and its speculation and conjecture - I'm referring to hard facts and what directly CAUSED the housing crisis, not this "too much money was sitting around" horsecrap . These "roots", as you refer to them, would have meant nothing if the government didn't direct fannie and gang to push for more subprime lending at the direct risk of taxpayer dollars in the name of doing society good. People were allowed to buy homes they couldn't afford and the whole thing backfired - PERIOD, END OF EFFING STORY. And your hero, Barney Frank, was the key instrumental figure behind this all happening. So quit blaming Reagan and Bush. And every time you routinely lie about who is to blame for the crisis, I will call you out on it.




    The President of the United States has vastly more power and a vastly bigger bully pulpit than a lowly member of the Congress like Barney Frank.

    And let's look at the FACTS about what President Bush was doing back in 2002.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68

    Bush - the President of the United States, saying in an importanat speech, "we want everybody in America to own their own home. That's what we want".
    Bush and his adminstraion and his party pushed hard for home ownership expansion.

    It's you right-wingers who "routinely lie" about the facts of the historical record, and try to blame Barney Frank for the housing crisis.
    You can try to rewrite history to try to let Bush and your party off the hook for the housing crisis - but the facts give the lie to your right-wing BS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 6:42 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidChristian73,

    Let's make this really really simple. Because we could go back and forth forever saying "I'm right you're wrong".

    I want you to answer me this: if the government had not gotten involved and interfered in the natural flow of the market by directing banks to lower their lending standards while simultaneously guaranteeing the added insurance risks, would the crisis have happened? (Your whole argument is that deregulation is what caused the crisis).

    I already know the answer but I'd love to hear yours.


    Read what I previously wrote. To which I would, there is no "natural flow of the market." Capitalism is a system that without regulation will always consume itself.

    Again, you want a black and white situation in which government is the enemy and that's simply not true. Even if we assume that CRA created a "race to the bottom", without the repeal of Glass Steagal, the growth of an unregulated derivatives market, and the creation of exotic financial instruments like CDOs and CDSs, all of which came after CRA, there would have been no crisis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 6:43 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    Wan2GetBigR saidBarney Frank should have been gone a long time ago. This is the first time I ever remember seeing so many "Barney for Congress" ads on television. He's definitely running a little scared, as this race with Sean Bielat has been tighter than most he's had to face.


    So you'd rather have an avowedly anti-gay Congressman than Barney Frank? Who is also very likely to put the country back on the road to utter financial decimation as Bush did? icon_rolleyes.gif


    You mean the financial decimation pushed for and caused by liberals but PERMITTED and encouraged by Bush? I like how you conveniently want to Blame Bush for his irresponsible behavior in letting the kind of policies YOU WORSHIP to be enacted during his tenure.


    The roots of the financial collapse date back to Reagan and the complete failure of his and Bush I's administration's to regulate a derivatives market that grew for a few billion in the 1980s to trillions in at the time of the crash. Please read up on your history of the Financial Services Modernization Act (yes, signed by Clinton but WRITTEN by Republican Sen. Phil Gramm), and how Gramm's wife, who served on the Audit Committee for Enron when it collapsed due to financial hi-jinx, refused to admit that this enormous market required any regulation.


    I'm familiar with all of it and its speculation and conjecture - I'm referring to hard facts and what directly CAUSED the housing crisis, not this "too much money was sitting around" horsecrap . These "roots", as you refer to them, would have meant nothing if the government didn't direct fannie and gang to push for more subprime lending at the direct risk of taxpayer dollars in the name of doing society good. People were allowed to buy homes they couldn't afford and the whole thing backfired - PERIOD, END OF EFFING STORY. And your hero, Barney Frank, was the key instrumental figure behind this all happening. So quit blaming Reagan and Bush. And every time you routinely lie about who is to blame for the crisis, I will call you out on it.




    The President of the United States has vastly more power and a vastly bigger bully pulpit than a lowly member of the Congress like Barney Frank.

    And let's look at the FACTS about what President Bush was doing back in 2002.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68

    Bush - the President of the United States, saying in an importanat speech, "we want everybody in America to own their own home. That's what we want".
    Bush and his adminstraion and his party pushed hard for home ownership expansion.

    It's you right-wingers who "routinely lie" about the facts of the historical record, and try to blame Barney Frank for the housing crisis.
    You can try to rewrite history to try to let Bush and your party off the hook for the housing crisis - but the facts give the lie to your right-wing BS.


    We've already gone over this. I am perfectly aware of what Bush said and that he encouraged the process. He was acting EXACTLY like a leftwinger in his economic policies by allowing this to happen. The policies leading up to the housing crisis are, BY DEFINITION, LEFTWING POLICIES. The very kind YOU ENDORSE. Do you need to hear it again?

    Why do you think so many republicans are angry? Why do you think the tea party exists? Because we are MAD at republicans like Bush and others for GOING ALONG with leftwing democrats in the kind of policies that caused the housing crisis. We are furious about the fact that conventional republicans say one thing about fiscal responsibility and do another. What part of this are you so incapable of comprehending? It's like a mental block or something in your head.

    Every time you talk about how much Bush is to blame you are only magnifying the BLAME that rests on democrats like Barney Frank, Dodd and others who INITIATED and PUSHED for the government to lower lending standards in the name of helping the poor. Bush went along with this nonsense and that made him a BAD PRESIDENT and a FAKE fiscal conservative.

    GOT IT?

    *calms down*
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 6:46 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidChristian73,

    Let's make this really really simple. Because we could go back and forth forever saying "I'm right you're wrong".

    I want you to answer me this: if the government had not gotten involved and interfered in the natural flow of the market by directing banks to lower their lending standards while simultaneously guaranteeing the added insurance risks, would the crisis have happened? (Your whole argument is that deregulation is what caused the crisis).

    I already know the answer but I'd love to hear yours.


    Read what I previously wrote. To which I would, there is no "natural flow of the market." Capitalism is a system that without regulation will always consume itself.

    Again, you want a black and white situation in which government is the enemy and that's simply not true. Even if we assume that CRA created a "race to the bottom", without the repeal of Glass Steagal, the growth of an unregulated derivatives market, and the creation of exotic financial instruments like CDOs and CDSs, all of which came after CRA, there would have been no crisis.


    I wish you would give a more direct answer. This was a case where the government went out of its way to encourage irresponsible lending. Why can't you see that? In this particular case, you cannot argue that unregulated capitalism was to blame because it simply wasn't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 6:53 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidChristian73,

    Let's make this really really simple. Because we could go back and forth forever saying "I'm right you're wrong".

    I want you to answer me this: if the government had not gotten involved and interfered in the natural flow of the market by directing banks to lower their lending standards while simultaneously guaranteeing the added insurance risks, would the crisis have happened? (Your whole argument is that deregulation is what caused the crisis).

    I already know the answer but I'd love to hear yours.


    Read what I previously wrote. To which I would, there is no "natural flow of the market." Capitalism is a system that without regulation will always consume itself.

    Again, you want a black and white situation in which government is the enemy and that's simply not true. Even if we assume that CRA created a "race to the bottom", without the repeal of Glass Steagal, the growth of an unregulated derivatives market, and the creation of exotic financial instruments like CDOs and CDSs, all of which came after CRA, there would have been no crisis.


    I wish you would give a more direct answer. This was a case where the government went out of its way to encourage irresponsible lending. Why can't you see that? In this particular case, you cannot argue that unregulated capitalism was to blame because it simply wasn't.




    What utter nonsense.
    The reason that Bush and the Republicans supported "irresponsible lending" was because they support the dangerous and destructive policy of "unregulated capitalism".

    Both parties advocated expanded home ownership.
    The motivation of the Dems was to help more Americans become homeowners.
    The motivation of the Repubs was to help businesses make more money.
    AKA, "unregulated capitalism".

    The difference is that the Dems have learned their lesson and they recognize that more regulation is necessary to prevent another crisis like the housing meltdown.
    The Repubs HAVE NOT.
    They still support "unregulated capitalism".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 6:59 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidChristian73,

    Let's make this really really simple. Because we could go back and forth forever saying "I'm right you're wrong".

    I want you to answer me this: if the government had not gotten involved and interfered in the natural flow of the market by directing banks to lower their lending standards while simultaneously guaranteeing the added insurance risks, would the crisis have happened? (Your whole argument is that deregulation is what caused the crisis).

    I already know the answer but I'd love to hear yours.


    Read what I previously wrote. To which I would, there is no "natural flow of the market." Capitalism is a system that without regulation will always consume itself.

    Again, you want a black and white situation in which government is the enemy and that's simply not true. Even if we assume that CRA created a "race to the bottom", without the repeal of Glass Steagal, the growth of an unregulated derivatives market, and the creation of exotic financial instruments like CDOs and CDSs, all of which came after CRA, there would have been no crisis.


    I wish you would give a more direct answer. This was a case where the government went out of its way to encourage irresponsible lending. Why can't you see that? In this particular case, you cannot argue that unregulated capitalism was to blame because it simply wasn't.




    What utter nonsense.
    The reason that Bush and the Republicans supported "irresponsible lending" was because they support the dangerous and destructive policy of "unregulated capitalism".

    Both parties advocated expanded home ownership.
    The motivation of the Dems was to help more Americans become homeowners.
    The motivation of the Repubs was to help businesses make more money.
    AKA, "unregulated capitalism".


    lol, wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

    You are so ignorant of the issues it's rather astounding. Bush CAVED IN to the wishes of leftwing democrats who are constantly trying to engage in some kind of social justice program for people. As "the government", they pressured the banks to engage in irresponsible lending that they otherwise WOULD NOT HAVE DONE and hence the subsequent disaster would not have happened.

    Quit blaming unregulated capitalism, it had nothing to do with the crisis. This wasn't an instance where the government was failing to regulate banks enough from engaging in bad practices, it had to do with the government going OUT OF ITS WAY to encourage banks to engage in irresponsible behavior in the name of helping the poor.

    AND WHO were the chief advocates and initiators behind the government do this? None other than BARNEY FRANK, CHRIS DODD and others.

    Did Bush go along with bad policies? Absolutely! That's why there's something called the tea party that is fed up and angry with republicans have been engaging in the same big-government, interference policies that DEMOCRATS LIVE FOR AND LOVE.

    So next time you blame bush for the financial meltdown, just remember you're making democrats look worse.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 7:17 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidChristian73,

    Let's make this really really simple. Because we could go back and forth forever saying "I'm right you're wrong".

    I want you to answer me this: if the government had not gotten involved and interfered in the natural flow of the market by directing banks to lower their lending standards while simultaneously guaranteeing the added insurance risks, would the crisis have happened? (Your whole argument is that deregulation is what caused the crisis).

    I already know the answer but I'd love to hear yours.


    Read what I previously wrote. To which I would, there is no "natural flow of the market." Capitalism is a system that without regulation will always consume itself.

    Again, you want a black and white situation in which government is the enemy and that's simply not true. Even if we assume that CRA created a "race to the bottom", without the repeal of Glass Steagal, the growth of an unregulated derivatives market, and the creation of exotic financial instruments like CDOs and CDSs, all of which came after CRA, there would have been no crisis.


    I wish you would give a more direct answer. This was a case where the government went out of its way to encourage irresponsible lending. Why can't you see that? In this particular case, you cannot argue that unregulated capitalism was to blame because it simply wasn't.


    I don't think it's a "direct" answer you want but a "simple" answer. And there isn't one.

    If you were open to a more complicated answer as I gave you, you would see that. Even if I agreed with you that the CRA opened the door to sub-prime lending, it does not account for the instruments - such as slicing and dicing pieces of mortgages into bonds that were then rated by agencies as AAA when the majority of loans comprising them were not AAA, then sold from lenders to investment banks who then purchased insurance against them from AIG (what Warren Buffett called financial "weapons of mass destruction") - that poisoned and infiltrated nearly every financial services company.

    And CRA did not create financial institutions that were "too big too fail". No, repealing Glass Steagal did that.