"Fannie Mae Made Me Do it": Why Can't Conservatives Back Their Claims With Hard Evidence?

[Alceste]

Discussions of economics always seem to be the most vicious of exchanges, even worse than good ole religion. Perhaps it's because the
most of the faithful will tolerate other beliefs because they know that differences are based upon faith, & no one can prove the other wrong.
Economics is every bit as value laden as religion, but is considered factual & even somewhat scientific, so every one can believe they have
the truth. And how dare anyone disagree with the truth!

Aren't we still waiting for you to produce that "proof" you claim to have posted in some other long-lost thread and claim we all ignored? Given your distaste for fact-based opinions I am beginning to wonder whether you ever indulged in such an exercise at all, or if that was a clever ruse.

 

[Alceste]

If history doesn't recognize Fannie's & Freddie's culpability in the housing bubble, then rewritten it should be.
Several times I've provided a brief system analysis showing why such public policy made us vulnerable, but it
never gets any notice.

For posterity.

 

[Archer]

Whereas I don't see how such a conclusion is possible if we accept the fact that the private sector led the charge, held a majority market share, accepted significantly higher risk and had a significantly higher rate of default than the GSEs.

I was not making any real conclusions just observations. I meant the Gov. and its twins got this whole housing push started and the fact is the twins backed a lot of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Aren't we still waiting for you to produce that "proof" you claim to have posted in some other long-lost thread and claim we all ignored? Given your distaste for fact-based opinions I am beginning to wonder whether you ever indulged in such an exercise at all, or if that was a clever ruse.

It was a clever ruse.....by presenting a cogent evidence based argument, I knew you'd ignore it.
Then I'd later be able to accuse you of ignoring it.

 

[Alceste]

I was not making any real conclusions just observations. I meant the Gov. and its twins got this whole housing push started and the fact is the twins backed a lot of it.

So you don't believe the bankers and stock brokers in the private sector had any interest in building their personal wealth by selling more mortgages? They were only responding to government directives when they proactively seized a 65% share of the sub-prime market and indulged in riskier lending than the GSEs, with higher default rates?

The twins backed 35% of it, and their share was more rigorously vetted than the private sector's share, resulting in fewer defaults. The private sector was responsible for all the rest. The private sector's market share was not "backed" by anything, and yet they indulged in even greater risk-taking (and reaped higher short-term profits, and required higher TARP bailouts) than the GSEs.

It seems to me that no matter what the facts are, it simply has to be the government and Fannie and Freddie that caused the bubble, as far as conservatives are concerned. I suppose the more passionately one believes the private sector is inherently wonderful and the public sector is inherently incompetent, the more difficult it must be to abandon such a thoroughly debunked opinion on the cause of the Recession.

 

[Alceste]

It was a clever ruse.....by presenting a cogent evidence based argument, I knew you'd ignore it.
Then I'd later be able to accuse you of ignoring it.

Except that you simply didn't present any evidence or cogent arguments (do you ever?). You've only offered one lazy, effortless peanut gallery heckle after another. Some forums call that trolling. Better come up with a limerick before the mods catch on.

 

[Archer]

So you don't believe the bankers and stock brokers in the private sector had any interest in building their personal wealth by selling more mortgages? They were only responding to government directives when they proactively seized a 65% share of the sub-prime market and indulged in riskier lending than the GSEs, with higher default rates?

The twins backed 35% of it, and their share was more rigorously vetted than the private sector's share, resulting in fewer defaults. The private sector was responsible for all the rest. The private sector's market share was not "backed" by anything, and yet they indulged in even greater risk-taking (and reaped higher short-term profits, and required higher TARP bailouts) than the GSEs.

It seems to me that no matter what the facts are, it simply has to be the government and Fannie and Freddie that caused the bubble, as far as conservatives are concerned. I suppose the more passionately one believes the private sector is inherently wonderful and the public sector is inherently incompetent, the more difficult it must be to abandon such a thoroughly debunked opinion on the cause of the Recession.

You have blown what I have said out of proportion. The fact that it got out of control was the fault of the twins parent. I am no conservative or liberal and look at things as they are.

Massive deregulation and ****tie trade agreements as well as a liberal social policy are what screwed this country up and the jobs ain't coming back.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except that you simply didn't present any evidence or cogent arguments (do you ever?). You've only offered one lazy, effortless peanut gallery heckle after another. Some forums call that trolling. Better come up with a limerick before the mods catch on.

If ye search, ye shall find. But generally you just play tag team ad hominemisms with Sunny, oblivious to difficult questions or refutations.
We all discover that there are some topics where some people don't inspire the same effort one would devote to others. The mods haven't
booted me yet, but I'm constantly aware that I'm living on borrowed time. You could be rid of me at any moment.

 

[Archer]

Apparently, many Conservative Commentators are attempting to rewrite the history of the recent economic crisis in order to promote their agenda. Basically, they want to blame the recent crisis on subprime loans made to poor people and guaranteed by Fannie Mae. By doing so, they hope to drain the steam off efforts to better regulate financial institutions so that another economic crisis will be prevented.

However, the Conservative rewrite of history simply does not hold water. For a number of reasons (see links), poor people cannot be blamed for the recent near collapse of the world economy. Instead, the primary cause of the near collapse was almost certainly the suicidal deregulation of financial institutions.

"Did the Poor Cause the Crisis?"

"Phil Gramm's Ridiculous Revisionist History"

"Myths and falsehoods about the purported link between affordable housing initiatives and the financial crisis"

Do you think Conservatives will manage to make their rewrite of history the most accepted version of what caused the Great Recession? Why or why not?

Why can't Conservatives back their claims about this issue with hard evidence?

So back to the OP. I can see how they would come to the conclusion.

In December, the Republican minority on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), weighed in with a preemptive dissenting narrative. According to this group, misguided government policies, aimed at increasing homeownership among relatively poor people, pushed too many into taking out subprime mortgages that they could not afford......................................................................The FCIC Republicans are right to place the government at the center of what went wrong. But this was not a case of over-regulating and over-reaching. On the contrary, 30 years of financial deregulation, made possible by capturing the hearts and minds of regulators, and of politicians on both sides of the aisle, gave a narrow private-sector elite – mostly on Wall Street – almost all the upside of the housing boom.
The downside was shoved onto the rest of society, particularly the relatively uneducated and underpaid, who now have lost their houses, their jobs, their hopes for their children, or all of the above. These people did not cause the crisis. But they are paying for it.

Above from: "Did the Poor Cause the Crisis?"link take out the rhetoric and this shines a little. This is a matter of opinion if they would not have jumped on the loans would the bubble have popped or even existed?

"Phil Gramm's Ridiculous Revisionist History" one voice not a collective.

"Myths and falsehoods about the purported link between affordable housing initiatives and the financial crisis" and affordable housing has nothing to do with getting in over your head.

 

[Alceste]

If ye search, ye shall find. But generally you just play tag team ad hominemisms with Sunny, oblivious to difficult questions or refutations.
We all discover that there are some topics where some people don't inspire the same effort one would devote to others. The mods haven't
booted me yet, but I'm constantly aware that I'm living on borrowed time. You could be rid of me at any moment.

I couldn't even be bothered to read that whole post. After the first three words I could see your "cogent, evidence based arguments" were not going to be forthcoming.

 

[Alceste]

You have blown what I have said out of proportion. The fact that it got out of control was the fault of the twins parent. I am no conservative or liberal and look at things as they are.

Massive deregulation and ****tie trade agreements as well as a liberal social policy are what screwed this country up and the jobs ain't coming back.

Your country has a "liberal social policy"???? What could you possibly mean? (Keep in mind, I'm a Canadian).

 

[Archer]

Giving to those who cant or wont earn it or even attempt to respect it.

Welfare recipients of which many don't appreciate it or even care enough to try and get off of public assistance. The people who take advantage of the tax system by filing single when they are married. The people who were handed homes and did not care it they lost it because they were living a transient lifestyle. On and on. IDK about up there but here some of the policies are written to give this country away both the right and left do it.

 

[Alceste]

Giving to those who cant or wont earn it or even attempt to respect it.

Welfare recipients of which many don't appreciate it or even care enough to try and get off of public assistance. The people who take advantage of the tax system by filing single when they are married. The people who were handed homes and did not care it they lost it because they were living a transient lifestyle. On and on. IDK about up there but here some of the policies are written to give this country away both the right and left do it.

You would prefer to live in a country with no social security? No welfare, no medicare, no unemployment insurance or disability, public housing, national pension plan, etc?

 

[Archer]

You would prefer to live in a country with no social security? No welfare, no medicare, no unemployment insurance or disability, public housing, national pension plan, etc?

I prefer executing or deporting those who refuse to make an effort to help themselves. They are a drain on society. Those who cant help themselves (Old and /or handicapped) are completely different. Don't twist it.

 

[Alceste]

I prefer executing or deporting those who refuse to make an effort to help themselves. They are a drain on society. Those who cant help themselves (Old and /or handicapped) are completely different. Don't twist it.

:sarcastic Where would you deport impoverished Americans to?

Anyway, there's not much I could twist a preference for executing the chronically unemployed into that would make it sound worse. lol.

 

[Archer]

:sarcastic Where would you deport impoverished Americans to?

Anyway, there's not much I could twist a preference for executing the chronically unemployed into that would make it sound worse. lol.

If there are no jobs there are no jobs hell collect the check but I am not talking about unemployment or bad runs of luck. I am talking about generational welfare. I just knew you would go there I never said anything about unemployed and there is the twist.

Well I know Canada wont take them. I knew an engineer who went to Canada and they made sure of why he was going.

I wont take anything away from you guys up there, long nights and good beer.

Hey send them to Africa No I would not want to put any more strain on that part of the world. Siberian labor camps

 

[Alceste]

If there are no jobs there are no jobs hell collect the check but I am not talking about unemployment or bad runs of luck. I am talking about generational welfare. I just knew you would go there I never said anything about unemployed and there is the twist.

You can't imagine any solution to the problem of inter-generational poverty besides shipping families with a long history of being on the receiving end of government assistance out of the country? What about education? Policies like progressive taxation that demonstrably enhance economic mobility? Affordable housing? Mixed-income urban zoning policies that help prevent the development of ghettos where a culture of poverty and helplessness can germinate? The decriminalization of drug use and drug possession?

It seems to me that to believe the persistently poor are beyond redemption is to give up. America's problems are fixable. It's just that the RICH welfare recipients (JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, etc) would rather not fix them because they perceive widespread poverty and dismal education to be beneficial to their bottom line: a large population of desperate, under-educated people = a large pool of cheap labour unlikely to organize and lobby for costly labour standards.

Well I know Canada wont take them. I knew an engineer who went to Canada and they made sure of why he was going.

I wont take anything away from you guys up there, long nights and good beer.

Hey send them to Africa No I would not want to put any more strain on that part of the world. Siberian labor camps

You're right, Canada's immigration restrictions are quite insurmountable for the poor. That doesn't stop our brain-dead conservative immigration minister from arguing that poor people from all over the world are being drawn to Canada because of our "generous social programs". Generally speaking, we get rich people from poor countries.

 

[Archer]

You can't imagine any solution to the problem of inter-generational poverty besides shipping families with a long history of being on the receiving end of government assistance out of the country? What about education? Policies like progressive taxation that demonstrably enhance economic mobility? Affordable housing? Mixed-income urban zoning policies that help prevent the development of ghettos where a culture of poverty and helplessness can germinate? The decriminalization of drug use and drug possession?

No; absolutely not. We have tried to educate and now we have a bunch of educated idiots. We tried the home thing and look where that got us, the integration does not work because most of us wont stay around the crap if we have a choice.

Ghetto or trailer trash makes no difference black, white, Latino or other. The problem is not, I REPEAT NOT income it is attitude. This attitude is many times hereditary. Americans have a problem with being accountable for themselves and think everyone else is responsible for their personal state of being.

 

[Alceste]

No; absolutely not. We have tried to educate and now we have a bunch of educated idiots. We tried the home thing and look where that got us, the integration does not work because most of us wont stay around the crap if we have a choice.

Ghetto or trailer trash makes no difference black, white, Latino or other. The problem is not, I REPEAT NOT income it is attitude. This attitude is many times hereditary. Americans have a problem with being accountable for themselves and think everyone else is responsible for their personal state of being.

Well, while we might take radically different roads to arrive, it seems we share a destination at the very least.

 

[Archer]

Well, while we might take radically different roads to arrive, it seems we share a destination at the very least.

All roads (using logic and common sense anyway) lead to roam