Sam Harris on Sarah Palin

[_Analytics]

Here is a good article that responds directly to the tripe that dart has swallowed:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... ime_crisis

The idea started on the outer precincts of the right. Thomas DiLorenzo, an economist who calls Ron Paul "the Jefferson of our time," wrote in September that the housing crisis is "the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers." The policy DiLorenzo decries is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to lend throughout the communities they serve.

The Blame-CRA theme bounced around the right-wing Freerepublic.com. In January it figured in a Washington Times column. In February, a Cato Institute affiliate named Stan Liebowitz picked up the critique in a New York Post op-ed headlined "The Real Scandal: How the Feds Invented the Mortgage Mess."...

The revisionists say the problem wasn't too little regulation; but too much, via CRA. The law was enacted in response to both intentional redlining and structural barriers to credit for low-income communities. CRA applies only to banks and thrifts that are federally insured; it's conceived as a quid pro quo for that privilege, among others. This means the law doesn't apply to independent mortgage companies (or payday lenders, check-cashers, etc.) ...

But CRA has always had critics, and they now suggest that the law went too far in encouraging banks to lend in struggling communities. Rhetoric aside, the argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?

The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later.In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." ...

Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves…

Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts…

It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did.

[_dartagnan]

Begla is a annoying troll-man who would call an SNL skit digging at Palin funny even if it was lifeless.

Nice to see we agree on something.

However, that skit was funny

It was also biased and misleading. Palin never said, "I don't know what the Bush Doctrine is," nor had she ever implied it.

Palin has been engaging in blatant serial lying as she sticks to script even after she's been called out on some of the more egregious points.

You've said this before, and I've already shown that you merely beg the question. The burden is on you to prove she didn't say something. You haven't done that yet. Do you intend to, or will you just stick with the scripted "she's a liar" rhetoric?

it is possible the show you saw happened to contain some of them rather than spokesmen for the campaign. I'm not sure.

I am. I was thinking of it all day how I was mistaken to think CNN had taken a turn towards being more objective. I had been out of the country for four years so I heard rumors they had changed. I guess not.

That what's I'm calling absurd. Fox's bias is so blatant and its status as an arm of a rightwing propaganda machine so apparent that people who argue that it is more "balanced" than the liberal media of the likes of CNN and friends just come off as so ideologically compromised that they can't think straight. You can mine their News ticker for headlines that are eyeroll worthy on a near daily basis. (My personal favorite to this day was something to the effect of, "Will the liberal war on Christmas destroy our economy?")

If you take out Hannity, then Fox would appear damn near objective. Seriously. Can you point to blatant bias in Greta, O'Reilly, Hume, Smith? Because every time a liberal complains about FOX they usually throw up Hannity as the reason. Obama doesn't like Hannity, but he was gracious enough to show up on O'Reilly's show. And are you really forced to go all the way back to the Christmas debacle from years ago, to find a "biased" theme? Because I only need to go backa few hours to find them on CBA, CNN, MSNBC etc.
And the last time I checked, the war on Christmas was a national issue. CNN covered it just the same.

We're, what?, 2 weeks removed from the "lipstick on a pig" story that dominated the media cycle? Prior to that the McCain campaign was controlling the media cycles with similar narratives to the point where Democrats were getting noticeably sweaty over it.

You're kidding right? The lipstick-pig remark was just stupid. McCain even said he didn't believe Obama was calling Palin a pig, but he comment was made in the context of the "lipstick-pitbull" remark by Palin. He cannot complain that some people felt it was sexist and inappropriate. I actually think Obama was intentional with his remark, in order to get the focus off of Palin for once.

Terrorist fist jab? Seriously, though, how about this: http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6LBbeXTww. There are several examples of that by the way.

This computer I'm on doesn't have speakers, but I'm guessing that is the clip where the host calls him Barack Osama? As I have pointed out elsewhere, this was a common mistake made by many people, even Ted Kennedy. On the issue of his "Muslim Faith", O'Reilly has corrected that misunderstanding numerous occasions even though Obama's own gaffe, "my Muslim faith." How many folks at CNN have noted that Palin doesn't support replacing evolution with creationism? This is another difference I see between Fox and CNN. If Fox reports something incorrectly, they own up to it. O'Reilly goes out of his way to do this all the time, and even invites the public to email or call if they have evidence anything they report is incorrect. I have never seen CNN do this or own up to a miskate, especially with respect to politics. A classic example is the "Bush Doctrine" crapola. It was debunked almost immediately after it was aired, and yet CNN correspondents are given free reign with the smear without ever having to worry about being challenged on it.

But Charles Gibson is supposed to be the new Mike Wallace. The pinnacle of journalistic integrity. And here he is performing all sorts of rhetorical maneuvers on Palin, trying to force her to admit to positions she doesn't hold, and he even misrepresented the "God taking our side" comment which she never made. He put her on teh spot, didn't document anything, and then edited out most of her objection. The entire interview was one cut after another, making Palin look as much like a buffoon as possible.

FOX never did that to a VP or Presidential candidate.

They're often working directly with the McCain campaign, Kevin, or following their coordinated talking points script. If you don't watch CNN much I understand, but wonder why you feel free to offer your analysis.

Because I have never seen such a wopsided "debate" in all my life, by participants who seem entirely dinsinterested in defending their candidate. Where do they find these people? And why don't they invite everyone? At Fox, then invite the nard-nosed Democrats and many of them show up. Aside from the silly Hannity-Colmes matchup, they generally don't align heavy-weights with feather-weights. Again, why doesn't CNN invited Newt Gingrich or Dick Morris?

Fox is obviously biased to the point where those people wouldn't consider it part of the mainstream media per se.

That seems rather silly since more people watch FOX than any other station. What is your standard for mainstream? They are demolishing the other news outlets in the Neilson ratings, in spite of the fact that most people in America are democrat. How else can this be explained if not for the fact that people are getting fed up with the overt bias exhibited by the Olbermans and the Matthews' of the left. As I asked, how is it that Hillary Clinton could refer to FOX as the more fair and balanced if what you say is true?

By mainstream media, what is meant is ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and so on. The "fair and balanced" theme is a joke that even you should see as ironic.

What makes CNN more mainstream than FOX? You haven't explained. FOX gets more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. "Fair and balanced" was a theme from its beginning. It was a response to the liberal media that dominated the scene for too long, and people have shown they are sick of it. There is a reason FOX leads the rest. Why do you think that is?

The New York Times is the most liberal source on the planet. Now there's a well thought out statement. I think that says all that needs to be said about your capacity to look at this objectively.

Well, if it isn't, then what is? My statement is either true or false. If you think it is false, then please point out a source that's more liberal.

[_dartagnan]

Analytics, just deal with the evidence. I've got Bill Clinton admitting this already, so stop trying to spin it otherwise. I said nothing about the CRA of 1977, so that entire article is a straw man. Everything isn't black and white. It doesn't have to be whether the banks wanted to make money or whether they were forced to give out bad loans. It was both. Banks aren't going to do something that makes no money, but the fact is that at best, they were going to make less money through bad loans with unqualified borrowers, and at worst, they were taking a huge risk and going to lose money. Unfortunately the latter came true. The evidence is documented and it spans more than a decade, showing without a doubt, that banks had to lower their credit standards substantially, to appease the Democrat powers that be, pressuring them to make it easier for poorer folks to own their homes.

Of course, Bush didn't do anything about it because the numbers made him look good. What the democrats did resulted in a record number of homeowners in US history early on in Bush's administration. I remember Bush was bragging about this before I went to Brazil back in 2003, as if it had anything to do with his economic policy.

Calling my post "tripe" must mean you're calling the NYT and Bill Clinton tripe as well. I'm simply agreeing with them.

It really says alot when Bill Clinton can admit that the democrats were the ones blocking reform of FM/FM.

[_GoodK]

Well, hell it must be true then, because GoodK says so! Who needs evidence to support crazyass assertions when bald assertion will satisfy most liberals?

Just because you know as much about the economy as Sarah Palin doesn't mean that stating a simple fact is a bald assertion.

I can't even tell if you are serious these days. Part of me thinks that you are bored and just trying to stir the pot. I refuse to believe you are this clueless:

This is what I tried telling you and others from the beginning. The democrat effort to extend risky loans to unqualified buyers (argued on racial lines!) which began in the 90's, cannot be dismissed as a symptom when it is in fact a cause.

Antishock:

Clearly Bill Clinton isn't taking responsibility for all - or even most - of the current financial crisis. You're not trying to say that, are you? I don't think you are, but Kevin seems convinced. Clinton is saying what he could or should have done better. It's admirable that he is willing to do so.

I'm simply not up to task for linking all the Democrats who opposed regulation, who took huge donations and sweetheart deals from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and explaining who Senator Obama's chief financial advisor is and why he is. The bottom line is Democrats were in the lenders' pockets, AND they based their policies on misguided "social justice" notions of Marxism rampant throughout their party and their base.

I'm not up to task for explaining Reaganomics, but if you are looking for someone who opposed regulations, look no further than the Messiah of the Republican party, Ronald Reagan himself. This is common knowledge. At least I thougth it was.

Many of the regulatory programs started by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s aimed to promote fairness in economic competition. That legislation required greater transparency so that investors could more intelligently judge the value of securities in the stock market. The reforms mandated a separation of commercial and investment bank activities, since speculative investments by commercial banks had been one of the principal causes of the financial crash. Roosevelt’s New Deal also created a bank insurance program, the FDIC, which brought stability to a finance industry that had been on the verge of collapse.
These and other improvements of the 1930s worked splendidly. For the next half century American markets operated with impressive stability. There were periods of boom and recession, but the country’s financial system did not suffer from the kinds of shocks that have upset the American economy in recent years.
The turn away from rules that promote fair business practices fostered dangerous risk-taking. An early sign of the troubles occurred on Reagan’s watch. When the requirements for managing savings and loan institutions became lax in the 1980s, leaders of those organizations invested money recklessly. Many institutions failed or came close to failure, and the cleanup cost more than $150 billion. Yet blame for that crisis did not stick to the Teflon President.
Recent troubles in the American economy can be attributed to a weakening of business regulation in the public interest, which is, in large part, a consequence of Reagan’s anti-government preaching. In the absence of oversight, lending became a wildcat enterprise. Mortgage brokers easily deceived home buyers by promoting sub-prime loans, and then they passed on bundled documents to unwary investors. Executives at Fannie Mae packaged both conventional and sub-prime loans, and they too, operated almost free of serious oversight. Fannie’s leaders spent lavishly to hire sixty Washington lobbyists who showered congressmen with campaign funds. Executives at Fannie were generous to the politicians because they wanted to ward off regulation.
Meanwhile, on Wall Street, brokerage firms became deeply committed to risky mortgage investments and did not make their customers fully aware of the risks. The nation’s leading credit rating agencies, in turn, were not under much pressure to question claims about mortgage-based instruments that were marketed as Blue Chip quality. Government watchdogs were not active during those times to serve the interests of the public and the investors.
The most influential person to call for a more powerful watchdog recently is Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson. After responding to the credit crisis by working with the Federal Reserve to shore up and bail out floundering business organizations, Paulson has become the leading challenger to Reagan’s outlook on government. During an August 10 interview on Meet the Press Paulson stressed over and over again that “the stability of our capital markets” requires “a strong regulator.” Our regulatory system is badly “outdated,” Paulson complained. Market discipline should be tightened by assigning a “regulator with the necessary power,” said the Treasury Secretary.
Henry Paulson never mentioned Ronald Reagan’s name during the interview, but the implications of his remarks were clear. Reagan’s views of the relationship between government and business helped to put the nation and the world into a good deal of trouble. It is time to recognize that the former president’s understanding of economics was not as sophisticated as his enthusiastic supporters often claimed.
Reagan deserves credit for serving as a vigorous defender of free markets, but he carried the idea to extremes. Ironically, the great champion of business enterprise advocated policies that have seriously hurt business here and abroad.

[Guest]

Just because you know as much about the economy as Sarah Palin doesn't mean that stating a simple fact is a bald assertion.

I've been quoting sources to support what I say, whereas you're making bald assertions based on your say-so. And I could only hope to know as much about the economy as Palin, though I'm pretty sure I know more than Obama. You probably do too. Well...

I can't even tell if you are serious these days. Part of me thinks that you are bored and just trying to stir the pot. I refuse to believe you are this clueless:

You don't research much do you? Do you know what the word means? It is a hard fact that Democrats have a long history of pushing for accessible and affordable housing for minorities at the expense of banks. This is not a moot point, but an established fact. Democrats don't deny it, so why are you? Democrats embrace this effort as noble so why don't you? I can see why so many liberals wouldn't like to come to grips with it because it totally demolishes their political philosophy. But to maintain willful ignorance while pouting out is just begging to be called an idiot.

Idiot.

Incidentally, I happen to know a thing or two about buying and selling properties. My Father buys older homes, fixes them up and rents them out or resells them. He has bought newer homes owned by people forced to foreclose, and they look like they are 40 years old because they have not been maintained properly.

So many poorer families, just the way they live, do not generally take car of their homes, which means the value drops substantially. And who pays for it? Certainly not them. They move on to an apartment complex and pay rent that is less than their mortgage. So who pays for it? The banks, who are forced to sell the homes at a price substantially below their real value. They eat the difference.

So the irresponsible lending practice, so cherished by the left as a noble thing, has had its financial drawbacks in more ways than one.

The fact that you think regulation was what caused the current financial crisis, is further evidence that you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about and are simply regurgitating the latest talking points. Fanny Mae was being regulated. Regulation didn't change anything. Reform is what was needed. Reform and additional oversight. Oversight to prevent banks from making poor investments such as the millions of people who borrowed from them. But then, that couldn't happen because that went against everything the Democrats had fought for for so many years.

[_Analytics]

Analytics, just deal with the evidence....

Before I respond to this, did you read the post before the "tripe" one? I quoted where President Bush lays the blame.

I can't tell if you are ignoring it or missed it.

[_The Dude]

Come on, Kevin. Tripe is eaten and enjoyed in many South American countries, including Brazil. If you don't like your wife's cooking just say so. [/quip]

[Guest]

I do not doubt that lower interest rates were set by the feds. So why are you denying the plethora of articles and documented evidence over the course of a decade, that show a concerted political effort by Democrats to make homeownership more accessible to poorer families? Sure, lower interest rates helped attract outside buyers, but that has always been the case. What's different is the explosion of home ownership. The data is clear.

Home ownership reached all time record during the Bush Administration. Now how do you explain this amazing feat? Did everyone suddenly feel inclined to invest in a home because of low interest rates? Of course not. Poorer folks have always been trying to buy homes, but only in recent years did the banks hedge on redling to help minorities with less than stellar credit, "qualify" for loans.

Virtually every economist acknowledges that this was a result of the political pressures from Washington. Your own article, written by a non-economist, even admits that this is how real economists explain it. You responded to educated opinion with the latest liberal talking point.

led to excesses [by “materialistic home buyers”]

That sure does require a hell of alot of mind reading there Analytics! Show me one economist who blames the current crisis on "materialistic home buyers." Just one. The notion that the explosion in home ownership is due to rich folks trying to get richer, is patently absurd and is supported by nothing. In fact, as I will show in a minute, it contradicts it.

Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay [their decision—not the Democrats or Fannie Mae’s].

This is horse crap. They knew precisely what their credit scores and incomes were, but they were pressured to give loans anyway. This is what the evidence shows. You've dealt with none of it. NONE. How does it even make sense to say a bank doesn't "carefully examine" someone's credit background? Have you ever applied for a loan? They look into everything. The question is, does your credit meet their standards.

Their "background checks" haven't changed in degree, their standards have.

Seriously Analytics, if you're left with nothing else except a rant by the biggest moron in politics, George Bush, and continue to reject all the reputable sources I have provided, then there is nothing left to say really. You're going to be in denial to the end. And in the end, I have Bill Clinton (who has some insight as to what democrats during the 90's wanted to do), the New York Times outlining my argument nearly word for word back in 1999, and several economists concurring on what I have presented.

And you're left with some ridiculously biased "liberal intelligence" web article written by a non-economist and a dependency on George Bush's latest politically correct "explanation." As if he would come out and blame democrats even if he truly believed it to be their fault.

Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford, assuming that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on[these were not people in neighborhoods that would be redlined].

Let's deal with the facts shall we? http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883976.html

Home ownership reached its peak in 2004 at 69%. In 1996 it was 65.4%. That is a 3.6% increase over an eight year period. Notice how the increase in home loans for white families is below the national average, yet all minority classes are above the national average.

Between 1996 and 2004, home ownership among white families rose 3%.

Between 1996 and 2004, home ownership among black families rose 5%.

Between 1996 and 2004, home ownership among Indians and Eskimos rose 4%.

Between 1996 and 2004, home ownership among Hispanics rose 5.3%.

Between 1996 and 2004, home ownership among Asians rose 9%.

"Other races" saw an increase in home ownership by 7.6%.

So this literally flushes your pet theory down the toilet. Unless of course you really want to argue that most of these "materialistic" homeowners are minorities.

Moreover, the data shows us who is foreclosing as well. In 2005 the rate of homeownership begins to drop because of record foreclosures. Notice that among white families, it drops only 0.8% whereas among blacks it drops 1.9%. In 2006 CNN reported that, "Home foreclosures are rising, especially for minority homeowners, according to a published report." Indeed, minorities were twice as likely to foreclose. This pretty much solidifies the point I was making all along.

[_dartagnan]

My wife's cooking??

HA.

My wife burns water, OK?

[_antishock8]

GoodK,

I might be motivated a little later to develop a timeline starting with the Clinton administration through October '08, but for now I'll just start with '05 forward, in a very basic way (this is for me because I don't feel up to researching the benchmarks).

2005- Alan Greenspan sounds the alarm about out of control lending and the need for regulation, otherwise we'd have a financial crisis akin to the Great Depression at hand.

2005- The Senate Banking Committe passes a reform bill urging Congress to pass law regulating lending practices

2006- Congress does nothing at the urging of FM/FM

2007- Congress does nothing at the urging of FM/FM despite record foreclosures

2008- FM/FM implode, causing chain reactions that if left uninterrupted by a bailout will literally collapse the global banking and finance markets, causing a worldwide depression

The bottom line is this could have been avoided had Congress acted upon receiving the bill which was done at the behest of the Federal Reserve Chairman back in '05. It's Democratic inaction that catapulted this crisis into the stratosphere, not Republican idealism.

Remember, I was a line-voting Democrat up until this Presidential election. I'm all about The Gays getting married, letting the hippies smoke some weed, and us getting out of Iraq asap... So this isn't me piling on or shifting blame. It's just me seeing things for what they are.

Mantras and sloganeering aren't going to fix this mess. This is why Senator McCain went back to Washington to get this done. Personal gain had to take a back seat to the nation's interest, and I think the Senator showed some leadership that isn't offered from the other side, and has been lacking in the White House for a good 8 years.