Sam Harris on Sarah Palin

[_dblagent007]

Here is a nice video that shows exactly what created the crisis we are in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

[_Trevor]

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...

LOL!!! Stop, please!!!

Yes, I am sure her degree in journalism from Idaho places her among the Titans of economic knowledge.

[_dartagnan]

As opposed to Obama's in international relations?

[_Analytics]

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?

I’m sure Democrats wanted to make home ownership more accessible to everyone, and heck, they may have actually even did something. If you think they did, I’ll take your word for it.

I’m just saying that only the most blindly ignorant ideologues think this is a major cause of the current mess.

Home ownership reached all time record during the Bush Administration. Now how do you explain this amazing feat?

In the same way that every other Economist does: because of the secondary market for nonagency collateralized mortgage obligations created by investment banks. President Bush outlined what happened in the quote.

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.

What does it even mean for a bank to “hedge on redling”?

Virtually every economist acknowledges that this was a result of the political pressures from Washington.

You are so far into left field. Free market forces driven by greed, bad judgment, and leveraged CMOs are what caused this.

Your own article, written by a non-economist, even admits that this is how real economists explain it.

What are you talking about?

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.

By “materialistic home buyers” I mean borrowers taking out loans larger than they could afford under the assumption that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on. In a carefully drafted speech, George W. Bush claims that “most economists” believe this was a key factor, so I cite his economic advisors as economists who agree with this.

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.

The housing bubble was much more than an explosion in home ownership—it was an explosion in home prices. Do you think it is absurd to claim that the rise in house prices had to do with the rich trying to get richer?

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?

You do realize that it is President Bush’s opinion you are calling horse crap, aren’t you? Could you provide me with a quote from any reputable source that disputes what President Bush said on this point? If his explanation for the crisis was horse crap, many people should have called him on it.

Have you ever applied for a loan? They look into everything. The question is, does your credit meet their standards.

Different lenders have different standards. When I applied for my mortgage, the mortgage broker represented dozens of lenders, some of which did in fact had much lower underwriting standards than others.

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.

You are conflating different things! The 1999 New York Times article was correct—if Fannie Mae would have tightened its lending standards, it would have stood up better. Bill Clinton was right, the government should have regulated the GSEs better.

But doing that wouldn’t have prevented the current crisis!!!!! Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have dodged the bullet, but Bear and Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, AIG, and others would have all gone down anyway!!!!

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.

Are you suggesting that deep down George W. Bush really thinks that the problem is because of the Democrats, but he wants to be “politically correct”, so he decided to blame this mess on the free markets? Are you damned kidding me?

It seems to me that if “virtually all economists” agree with your version, they’d be furious for the President of the United States to claim that they actually agree with him. Where are the outraged economists who are upset at the president for claiming they blame the free markets when they really blame the democrats?

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.

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...
So this literally flushes your pet theory down the toilet.

You ought to look up the word “literally” in the dictionary.

Unless of course you really want to argue that most of these "materialistic" homeowners are minorities.

When President Bush said, “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”, he wasn’t talking about first-time home owners. People who already have homes move to other homes, and people who don’t move refinance and take on second mortgages.

[_Trevor]

As opposed to Obama's in international relations?

It's OK, Kevin. You made a silly statement. It happens. Changing the subject is only natural.

[_dartagnan]

Trevor, I'm guessing you're missing the context of my statement, which is probably why you think it silly. It was in direct response to GoodK's :

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 didn't make the statement because I felt she was a fountain of "economic knowledge." It was a backhanded remark in response to the one above. I would imagine that any governor would know more about the economy than I. The same isn't necessarily true for community organizers.

OK, more later after the debate...

[_GoodK]

I’m just saying that only the most blindly ignorant ideologues think this is a major cause of the current mess.

Clearly.

Exhibit A: dartagnan

You don't research much do you?

LOL. Only 40 hours a week, Monday through Friday.

Democrats don't deny it, so why are you?

What am I denying, again? You have to at least tell me what the strawman is before you start attacking it.

Incidentally, I happen to know a thing or two about buying and selling properties.

Incidentally, I happen to know a thing or two about the industry. I did work for Countrywide until they fell apart, after all.

My Father buys older homes, fixes them up and rents them out or resells them.

Really? How is that working out for him? Sounds like a profitable venture.

So the irresponsible lending practice, so cherished by the left as a noble thing

Nonsense.

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

You don't know enough about this to even be able to tell if I knew what I was talking about or not.

Incidentally I do know what I'm talking about, and I'm not merely interested in the economy at election time or when there is a chance for some partisan rhetoric.

and are simply regurgitating the latest talking points.

LOL. Coming from Mr. Newsbuster. You're funny. When your chubby for Sarah Palin goes away, and November has come and gone, it'll be back to the tektoniks.org talking points. What a phony you are.

Fanny Mae was being regulated.

No kidding. I never said, nor have I ever believed, that Fanny Mae was not regulated. I wasn't the one that said Democrats opposed regulating those institutions. The truth is, Ronald Reagan opposed oversight for financial institutions.

Again, you are showing you just don't know what the hell you are talking about.

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.

Good God man, are you kidding me? Reagan ended any sort of serious regulation in the housing sector. He helped S&L's lend recklessly, the same sort of reckless lending you are blaming on the "Democrats."

[_Trevor]

I didn't make the statement because I felt she was a fountain of "economic knowledge." It was a backhanded remark in response to the one above. I would imagine that any governor would know more about the economy than I. The same isn't necessarily true for community organizers.

OK, more later after the debate...

Gee, you know, it still makes no sense. Why I should expect the person who was only tapped recently to be a VP candidate to know so much about the US economy that it would put poor Kevin Graham to shame, whereas the guy who has been running for president for some time now could in no wise know half of what Kevin knows...it still really doesn't work.

[_dartagnan]

Trev, so you think it is silly for me to claim to have less knowledge about the economy, than an experienced governor of a state.

Why is this silly?

And why would you think Obama has the faintest clue about the economy? I don't see how you can use academic credentials to presume Palin's knowledge on the subject, and yet adopt a completely different standard when judging Obama. And what exactly is that standard anyway?

Anyway, just saw the debate. I have to crash in a minute but I just wanted to point out that I think McCain didn't go there to scrap. He knew his stuff and he didn't bother rebutting every single thing Obama got wrong. For instance, Obama's claim that McCain said we could just "muddle through Afghanistan." Factcheck.org corrected this falsehood as out of context, and McCain could have grilled him on this but he chose not to. Also, I found it funny that Obama thought he could take the wind out of McCain's sails by being the first person to claim to have "warned" about Fannie Mae "two years ago." He was studdering to get that out first so quickly it was funny. This guy followed the handbook on "How to Debate Effectively" to the letter, but it also showed and he came across as fake. McCain didn't rely on debate tactics, as always, and struck me as more genuine.

But Did Obama really warn us about Fannie Mae? Where? When? How? Oh, he says the warning appeared in a mysterious "letter" he wrote to the Treasury Dept at some undisclosed time. Hilarious! McCain proposes legislation to reform and Obama did nothing and he and his democrat friends took in large sums of money from FM/FM lobbyists. Now he wants to claim he was warning us all along.

I think McCain was pretty humble on this because he really could have shown how he was right and how the democrats fought tooth and nail for less oversight over FM/FM. But this was a sensitive topic for him and the nation, and I think he realized creating a war of word and playing the blame game wqould have been counterproductive. Obama on the other hand, didn't hesitate to blame the Republicans! What an idiot. This guy really is a rookie. McCain has 10 times the experience Obama has in the Senate.

I did like how McCain nailed him on his so-called earmarking withdrawl. Yeah, after he started campaigning for the presidency only then did he stop requesting earmarks, because he knew they would come back to haunt him. He should have also nailed him on the fact that Obama went to Iraq recently and tried to halt the troop withdrawl until after the election. Why? So he could get credit for it. But I guess this is why McCain wanted MORE debates. There simply isn't enough time to cover all that needs to be covered in these short debates.

ANyway,,, im out

[_MsJack]

My wife's cooking??

HA.

My wife burns water, OK?

Sounds like me and your wife would get along pretty well.