Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Study Shows Democratic Party Policies Ruined Housing Market; Economy

Study Shows Democratic Party Policies Ruined Housing Market; Economy

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter1Share on Facebook28Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Here’s a little item that the MSM seems to continue (deliberately) to miss. The National Bureau of Economic Research has recently released a study (not an opinion) that shows policies pushed by Bill (Bubba) Clinton did, indeed, cause the housing market collapse. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), actively pursued by Bubba, was a primary factor in the housing market crash specifically, and the overall economy in general.

President George W. Bush went to Congress numerous times (17 times in 2008) to warn them that quasi-governmental home lending agents Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to destroy the home market in particular, and the economy in general. But Democrats continuously ignored him, shut down his proposals along party lines, and continued coercing Fannie and Freddie for campaign contributions. Guess which party controlled Congress in 2008.

In 2000, Fannie Mae Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick, said, at a banking conference, “We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals. We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities.” She said that soon after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) raised Fannie Mae’s affordable housing loans quotas to 50% and pressed it to buy more CRA-eligible loans to help meet the new quota. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought about half of all CRA home loans between 2001 and 2007, with most of those loans being subprime. And, yes, that’s the same Jamie Gorelick who was Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno, a member of the September 11 commission, and personally responsible for instituting the “wall,” a key obstacle to cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence operations before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To say that Jamie Gorelick is a Democratic political hack would be an understatement.

And this one really has to hurt. Even The New York Times admitted that there is “little evidence” of any connection between the deregulation measures that Obama blames, like the Gramm-Bleach-Liley Act, and the collapse of the housing market. By the way, Bubba signed the act in 1999.

And we cannot omit President Barack Hussein Obama and his role in the housing market and economy collapse. Obama personally signed on in 1995 to sue Citibank into lowering its lending standards to include people from extremely poor and unstable areas. Even Snopes, a blatantly leftist fact-checker, had to admit that this one is true. Snopes tried to, by using some tortured logic, excuse or minimize Obama’s part in the suit. Obama’s role in the lawsuit, as presented by Snopes, is both interesting and hilarious.

And, in September 2012, Obama did it again! His “anti-redlining” suit/campaign pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African Americans.

So, where does that leave us? The vast majority of the MSM, in an effort to blame Republicans while protecting Democrats, will continue to report what is blatantly and demonstrably untrue. The very liberal MSM has spent years relentlessly and deliberately spreading falsehoods, providing people with anything but the facts, turning them to mindless blame Bush robots who say Bush was in charge when Democratic policies destroyed the housing market and the economy.

Unfortunately, most of the US population will believe what the MSM reports, never will question their reporting, will never do any research (or even reading) for themselves. Yet this continued falsehood is what forms the basis for decision making in this country. Pity!

But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by

About

  • Dr Dreadful

    Warren, you’ll get no argument from me about the buck for the housing mess stopping at anyone’s door but Obama’s, since he is after all the President. But trying to pin the blame on him for causing the crisis in the first place just makes you look silly. Well, sillier than usual.

    Perhaps you were hoping that by not linking to it (and by poisoning the well), no-one would bother to actually check out Snopes’ assessment of Buycks-Robertson v. Citibank.

    I fail to see what is “tortured” about Snopes’s concisely factual outlining of Obama’s minor role in the case, nor do I see what a class action anti-discrimination lawsuit has to do with “forcing” banks to lend to high-risk borrowers.

    Perhaps you could guide me through this logical labyrinth. And while you’re about it, perhaps you’d care to explain (in your own words, for a change, rather than those of a whining right-wing blogger) exactly what makes Snopes a “blatantly leftist” fact-checker. And no, “website that sometimes tells right-wingers they’re wrong” will not cut it as a definition.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Any idiot (except you obviously) knows that the bush-era bank crisis was because of the housing crisis which began long before pbama took office.

    Your lack of intelligence and obvious hatred of hussein just keep topping itself tothe point that you are a meer joke not to take seriously.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    some one fix the ability to comment PLEASE

  • http://www.rosedigitalmarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Jet, your last comment appears to have been made from your normal IP…

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    What do all of the following years in bold have in common Warren? They’re all before 2009 when Hussein Obama took office!
    ========
    The value of American subprime mortgages was estimated at $1.3 trillion as of March 2007, with over 7.5 million first-lien subprime mortgages outstanding. Between 2004 & 2006 the share of subprime mortgages relative to total originations ranged from 18%-21%, versus less than 10% in 2001-2003 and during 2007.

    The boom in mortgage lending, including subprime lending, was also driven by a fast expansion of non-bank independent mortgage originators which despite their smaller share (around 25 percent in 2002) in the market have contributed to around 50 percent of the increase in mortgage credit between 2003 and 2005. In the third quarter of 2007, subprime ARMs making up only 6.8% of USA mortgages outstanding also accounted for 43% of the foreclosures which began during that quarter.

    Have you seen a doctor about your alergy to facts?

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Check your e-mail Chris

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    What do all of the following years in bold have in common Warren? They’re all before 2009 when Hussein Obama took office!
    ========
    The value of American subprime mortgages was estimated at $1.3 trillion as of March 2007, with over 7.5 million first-lien subprime mortgages outstanding. Between 2004 & 2006 the share of subprime mortgages relative to total originations ranged from 18%-21%, versus less than 10% in 2001-2003 and during 2007.
    The boom in mortgage lending, including subprime lending, was also driven by a fast expansion of non-bank independent mortgage originators which despite their smaller share (around 25 percent in 2002) in the market have contributed to around 50 percent of the increase in mortgage credit between 2003 and 2005. In the third quarter of 2007, subprime ARMs making up only 6.8% of USA mortgages outstanding also accounted for 43% of the foreclosures which began during that quarter.
    Have you seen a doctor about your alergy to facts?

  • troll

    the ‘ownership society’ was a delusion shared by democrat and republican administrations – an admirably bipartisan fuck up in this age of party politics highlighting the underlying force of crony financial capitalists

  • Baronius

    Barack Obama did exist before 2009, as a lawyer and legislator. The Daily Caller link in the article connects to a story about his law work.

    Good article, Warren.

  • Dr Dreadful

    The bit about Obama is just padding. Warren can never resist an opportunity to complain about the President, and manufactures one if he can’t see an obvious opening.

    Both the Daily Caller writer and the other blogger linked to in the article mischaracterize the lawsuit and exaggerate Obama’s role in it.

  • Maurice
  • Baronius

    There’s an automatic assumption that Warren is wrong. I can understand how that’s developed, but it’s unfair. Calling him “sillier than usual” or a “joke not to take seriously” is the kind of obnoxious stuff that I expect to see on other sites, but is a step down for this one. When it comes to dominate the threads following an author’s articles, it’s bullying. I think this article was pretty good. Warren’s to be admired for the stuff he puts up with (even though I’ve had my problems with his articles before).

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Baronius, you and Warren need to get a room. This article is obviously just a regurgitation of a couple of right-wing websites that he adores and he obiously could care less about facts. Rush Limp-baugh probably covered this a few days before Warren copied his homework.

    As for Obama, of course he single handedly engineered the housing crisis to make an inept Bush look bad… after all his middle name is Hussein!

  • Maurice

    The youtube video I pasted at #11 shows Bush pushing for the very things attributed to Obama.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Baronius, if I say that Warren is being sillier than usual it’s because he is both usually silly and exceptionally so, in my assessment, in this article.

    Note that unlike some other commenters I don’t stop there but make points in refutation: points Warren seldom has a satisfactory comeback for.

    I disagree that the article is good. Warren is a poor writer and thinker, and that prejudices me against him far more strongly than his politics. This piece is principally a regurgitation of arguments that have been made for months in the right-wing blogosphere blaming the housing crisis on the Clinton-era CRA. It’s a typical piece of American bubble thinking, which fails to account for how a piece of US legislation caused a global housing collapse.

    And what is the persistent use of Obama’s middle name, for reasons regarding which Warren protests innocence but is perfectly well aware of, if not obnoxious?

  • Baronius

    It’s completely obnoxious. Warren’s found something that bothers people, and he’s running with it.

    You’re right that a lot of the right wing blames the CRA and overregulation of the debt market. A lot of the left wing blames underregulation of the debt market. Neither one is necessarily more American-bubbly. And to be fair, a lot of the world’s financial institutions were invested in American housing debt. It did have ripples.

    This article highlights one study that promotes the CRA angle. I wouldn’t have heard about this study if it weren’t for Warren. I can’t begrudge him his effort to make the argument for his side the best that he can.

  • Dr Dreadful

    And to be fair, a lot of the world’s financial institutions were invested in American housing debt. It did have ripples.

    I’m not going to stand up and argue that the American economy doesn’t have global influence when clearly it has more than any other nation’s. However, we’re talking about a claim that the CRA forced lenders to sell high-risk mortgages to unsuitable customers. While foreign banks may have followed their American colleagues’ lead to some extent, they are not subject to US law with regard to their business in the rest of the world. It’s a very small part of the complete picture.

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment # 1, Doc, you are correct about the Snopes link, “Buycks-Robertson v. Citibank,” that I inadvertantly omitted. That is the one to which I was referring when I said that Snopes used tortured logic.

    You say, “I fail to see what is “tortured” about Snopes’s concisely factual outlining of Obama’s minor role in the case, nor do I see what a class action anti-discrimination lawsuit has to do with “forcing” banks to lend to high-risk borrowers.” If you cannot see Snopes’ tortured logic, then no response from me can ever cause you to see it. I guess we look at the article from different perspectives.

    You say, “… (in your own words, for a change, rather than those of a whining right-wing blogger) ….” I’m sure that you can cite some (even one) reference of some “whining right-wing blogger” that I copy. Until then, it’s very difficult to respond.

    Re: comment # 2, Jet, you say, “Any idiot (except you obviously)…” and, “Your lack of intelligence …” Classy on your part, as usual. Who is “pbama?” And I never said that Obama caused the housing market collapse, only that he had (and continues to have) a part in it. And damned if I didn’t provide a link that provides facts that form my opinion.

    Re: comment # 5, Jet, I provide a link to an analysis of a study – you do not. Please tell me why we should believe ANYTHING you provide. You say, “Have you seen a doctor about your alergy to facts?” I think that question is more appropriate for you.

    Re: comment # 9, Baronius, thank you. The DLPs really come out when their opinions are refuted by a study that points out the glaring falacies of what the MSM has fed them.

    Re: comment # 10, Doc, you say, “The bit about Obama is just padding.” Your opinion is showing – again.

    Re; comment # 15, Doc, you say, “Note that unlike some other commenters I don’t stop there but make points in refutation: points Warren seldom has a satisfactory comeback for.” Why bother to respond to what is obviously your opinion, repleat of any references.

    You continue, “I disagree that the article is good. Warren is a poor writer and thinker, and that prejudices me against him far more strongly than his politics. This piece is principally a regurgitation of arguments that have been made for months in the right-wing blogosphere …” Your opinion is showing – again. And, I can’t help but notice, Doc, that your regurgitation accusation provides no references.

    Re: comment # 17, Doc, you say, “While foreign banks may have followed their American colleagues’ lead to some extent, …” Gosh, are you admitting that the CRA may have had an effect on the global economy?

    You continue, “… they are not subject to US law with regard to their business in the rest of the world.” Are you referring here to “leverage?” Let’s see, I don’t recall any bank (foreign or domestic) being FORCED into investing in CRA loans, the loans Jamie Gorelick, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac said were sound investments. Thank you for strengthing my argument.

  • Clavos

    Baronius’ points that the automatic reactions by our resident liberals amount to bullying where Warren is involved are correct, and sadly, they seem to apply also (though to a lesser degree) to one of the more prominent commenters on these threads, who, though a liberal, has deservedly earned and maintains a significant degree of respect from those of us who lean to the right, myself included. I’m speaking of course of our esteemed Dr. Dreadful. Even he, it seems, tends to lose his admirable insight and perspective to a degree when commenting on Warren’s threads.

    Finally, as editor and publisher of this piece, I agree it is well written; it is also well researched and I have read nothing so far in this thread that even comes close to refuting the points made. Whomever referred to Warren’s principal source, The National Bureau of Economic Research, as “right wing” appears not to have done any investigation; the Bureau has been home to 22 Nobel Prize winners and the chairs of no fewer than thirteen president’s Council of Economic Advisors have also worked there. It is far from being a partisan organization.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Clav, I’ll try to be kinder to Warren. :-) And will respond to his #18 tomorrow when I have a bit more time.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    So what you’re saying Clavos is that as long as you agree with his opinion his sources are credible-despite the fact that anyone can find a website that agrees with you if you look hard enough. There are thousands of politicians and “neutral” organizations that can pontificate on any issue and be diametricly opposed to each other’s “facts’

    Every one of Warren’s Articles are basically the same-We all should hate the elected President of the United States. I was the same with Bush, but at least I wrote Science, Astronomy, book & movie reviews, and Entertainment pieces too.

    Warren is like waking into a bar and having to listen to the same song on the jukebox over and over and over again to the point of finally walking out.

    As far as personality conflicts go, it’s very hard to respect a hack who childishly, immaturely (and repeatedly) uses The President’s middle name Hussein in an idiotic delusion that if any reader “discovers” it, they’ll not only hate the President-but that they will instantly take Warren’s point of view as their own because of it.

    One more thing to chew on – Warren is oh so negatively anxious to tell us who he isn’t when he posts an article or a comment, so we can only make our own assumptions as to what he is – negative.

    There’s a reason I stopped listening to AM talk radio, since it leans so far to the right that the set keeps falling off the desk.

    ..but of course that’s only my opinion-and that is what his articles should be clearly marked as.

  • Doug Hunter

    “nor do I see what a class action anti-discrimination lawsuit has to do with ‘forcing’ banks to lend to high-risk borrowers.”- Doc

    Really? Citibank’s defense in the case was that they found the defendant along with the rest of the class to be high risk. The named plaintiff was in foreclosure for three years and has filed two bankruptices since the case. The statistics on the rest of the class demonstrate they were indeed very high risk. So you’re right no one is forced to do anything, you are certainly free to continue not lending to high risk borrowers and losing million dollar court cases and being harassed by the government under the CRA as much as you like.

    To the point though, the root of the discrimination is the fact that blacks (and hispanics) are 70-80% more likely to default and ultimately be foreclosed in a mortgage even when adjusted by income and credit score. In a cold, logical light this indicates minorities are already getting more loans than they can effectively handle… but people don’t like logic, they like to feel good. As a practical matter this means minorities as a group are higher risk so any attempt through legislation or lawsuit to force banks to lend equally to minorities is precisely ‘forcing banks to lend to high risk borrowers’.

    One more in a long list of reasons I find our laws fairly arbitrary, sort of made up as you go along (that’s why they settle these cases, who the hell knows what sort of ‘logic’ might be applied). Race is a protected class so it’s unfair to treat one class different even if there is good statistical reasoning (70-80% higher default rate would qualify), yet sex is a protected class and males have to pay higher car insurance premiums than females based on statistical differences in claims. Is this not discrimination all the same? Why does the law protect some classes more than others? Why does the statistical evidence count in one case and not in others? Why is it OK to punish one male with higher premiums based on the actions of other people who happen to share the same gender but it’s not OK to do the same with a minority in the process of a loan based on the payment history of his group?

    Then again, I have no respect for the law, the state, or authority in general so what do I know.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    The smart-assed “Bubba” in parentheses doesn’t help his credibility either as an unbiased source of “facts” and only alienates the very people he’s trying to convince.

    Obviously he only wants-or cares about like-minded fans and praise from the choir he’s preaching to instead of converts to his way of thinking.

    He wants to be another exhaulted Limp-baugh but is only a pale and embarassing copy

  • troll

    Dreadful re your #17 – weren’t European banks under pressure from their governments to take on more securitized risk (and thus make more profits poor things) in the housing market similar to the cra leading up to the collapse?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    It’s my day off and my honey-do list is lengthening by the minute, so this won’t be as detailed as I’d have liked.

    Warren (comment 18):

    If you cannot see Snopes’ tortured logic, then no response from me can ever cause you to see it.

    Why not? If the logic is tortured then it should be easy to show. You’re copping out, or being lazy, or both.

    I’m sure that you can cite some (even one) reference of some “whining right-wing blogger” that I copy.

    Certainly. Here’s one. Here’s another. And for balance, here’s a discussion of the question by some sensible people.

    Doc, you say, “The bit about Obama is just padding.” Your opinion is showing – again.

    Agreed. But your article arguing that the CRA is responsible for the housing crisis would have been brief indeed without the Obama insert. I think it’s a valid opinion.

    Why bother to respond to what is obviously your opinion, repleat of any references.

    And it’s difficult to know what to do with a response that not only misspells “replete” but also demonstrates that its author doesn’t know what the word means.

    I can’t help but notice, Doc, that your regurgitation accusation provides no references.

    There are two references right there in your article. The Daily Caller piece was published in early September, as was the blog entry in Maggie’s Notebook. Providing further examples seemed superfluous.

    Gosh, are you admitting that the CRA may have had an effect on the global economy?

    Of course it had an effect on the global economy – any piece of financial legislation passed in any country does. What I’m saying is that the CRA’s critics are not seeing the big picture. How can a US law compel a bank in, say, Italy to change its mortgage lending policies? As I pointed out, the crisis is global and not entirely in thrall to what goes on in Congress and the White House.

    I don’t recall any bank (foreign or domestic) being FORCED into investing in CRA loans, the loans Jamie Gorelick, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac said were sound investments.

    But isn’t that exactly your argument? Clinton is to blame for pushing for and signing the CRA into law – and not the banks for making foolish loans? Aren’t you trying to have it both ways?

    Clav (comment 19):

    I have read nothing so far in this thread that even comes close to refuting the points made.

    The full NBER study is behind a paywall but it basically claims that the requirements of the CRA compelled them to make riskier loans. But it seems most of the risk-taking wasn’t coming from the types of banks who were affected by the CRA. As I said, my time is limited this morning so I’ll have to be a bit half-assed and post for your reflection this nifty Slate piece rather than my own words. I don’t suppose you’ll agree with most of its conclusions but I think it’s fairly plain that Mr Gross’s take on the question is somewhat more sophisticated and nuanced than Warren’s.

    Doug (comment 22):

    Buycks-Roberson vs. Citibank was an anti-discrimination suit, brought because the defendants were systematically denying mortgage applications solely on the basis of where the applicant lived. If the banking industry collectively panicked and decided that the ruling meant they had to grant loans to all and sundry rather than consider the actual factual merits of each individual application, I don’t see how that is the fault of some junior attorney who would one day become President, or Bill Clinton’s fault, or anybody’s fault but the lenders themselves.

    And now I really must buzz off. Hopefully I’ll have time to get back online later. Yes, this is the length of comment I post when I’m pressed for time. Aren’t you all glad I don’t have unlimited leisure? :-)

  • troll

    …seems to me that one thing the CRA did do contributing to the crisis was starting in ’95 allow (read ‘encourage’ due to the profit factor) securities to be used to satisfy its quotas

    institutions like Goldman Sachs and Lehman Bros hardly had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the mbs game I guess and didn’t I read somewhere that they along with hedgers cut deals with the gov to remain unregulated under the act?

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment #15, Doc, you say, “And what is the persistent use of Obama’s middle name, for reasons regarding which Warren protests innocence but is perfectly well aware of, if not obnoxious?” Well, the use of “Hussein” may be obnoxious to you, but that is his middle name. I did not name him. Besides, by using “Hussein,” I am poking fun at John McCain, who said, in 2008, that his middle name should never be used or mentioned.

    Re: comment # 21 , Jet, you say, “Every one of Warren’s Articles are basically the same-We all should hate the elected President of the United States.” I have NEVER said I hated Obama.
    You continue, “Warren is like waking into a bar and having to listen to the same song on the jukebox over and over and over again to the point of finally walking out.” I can see how you feel that way since ALL of my articles have come from Obama’s inconsistencies, outright lies, and hypocrisy. I don’t have to make ANYTHING up.

    Re: comment # 25, Doc, in response to me saying, “I’m sure that you can cite some (even one) reference of some “whining right-wing blogger” that I copy.” you say, “Certainly. Here’s one. Here’s another. And for balance, here’s a discussion of the question by some sensible people.” The only “problem” is that the three sources you provide refer specifically to Snopes rather than some “whining right-wing blogger.” I’m still waiting.

    My “honey-do” list is also quite long, so more analysis of your comment as time permits.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Well, the use of “Hussein” may be obnoxious to you, but that is his middle name. I did not name him.

    Nor did you name George Bush, Bill Clinton, Jamie Gorelick or anyone else you’ve ever mentioned in your articles, yet I’ve never seen you use their middle names.

    Besides, by using “Hussein,” I am poking fun at John McCain, who said, in 2008, that his middle name should never be used or mentioned.

    That’s not why you do it and you know it.

    The only “problem” is that the three sources you provide refer specifically to Snopes rather than some “whining right-wing blogger.”

    Warren, I’m trying to be nice, but your comprehension problems make it difficult…

    My original challenge to you was to “explain (in your own words, for a change, rather than those of a whining right-wing blogger) exactly what makes Snopes a ‘blatantly leftist’ fact-checker”.

    To which you responded: “I’m sure that you can cite some (even one) reference of some ‘whining right-wing blogger’ that I copy”.

    Whereupon I provided two examples of “whining right-wing bloggers” that you might turn to for argument. Of course it is Snopes that they are whining about. That is what we are discussing.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    But… But… Doc, you missed his point… again.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Doc you missed that Warren early-on mentioned Clinton’s middle name, which I firmly believe that he does ignorantly believe IS “Bubba”

  • clavos

    Hm

  • clavos

    No, Bubba is only his nickname, bestowed on him because he’s the quintessential southern redneck.

  • Zingzing

    I do not think you know what “quintessential” means.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clav –

    No, Clinton is not the “quintessential southern redneck”. While such a redneck is not afraid of hard work in the hot sun, loves nothing more than a cold beer in the bass boat on the lake, and may or may not be very intelligent, “quintessential” also denotes “racist”.

    I grew up among them, remember. I’ve done a lot of redneck things (including being very conservative, being a homophobic racist, fishing with a cane pole, eating chitlins, attending a church homecoming right beside the church cemetery, hunting (once), et cetera, ad nauseum), but I don’t really qualify as a redneck. Neither does Clinton (heck, his Rhodes scholarship in and of itself probably disqualifies him). His brother probably did (remember ‘Billy Beer’?), but not William Jefferson Clinton himself.

  • roger nowosielski

    @33

    From one English major to another?

  • Clavos

    “quintessential” also denotes “racist”.

    Sorry (I’m not really) but I disagree. I’ve personally traveled throughout the heart of the south for years on business, have known plenty of rednecks and good ol’ boys. Not all of them, not even the majority of them, have been racists.

    The one exception might be that sorry state you come from.

  • Clavos

    @33:

    I don’t care.

  • Clavos

    His brother probably did (remember ‘Billy Beer’?)

    Oh, yes. He was my seat mate in First Class on a flight from Atlanta to Memphis once. In the space of about an hour, he managed to down no fewer than four bourbons. I got him to sign the back of one of my business cards; to this day, I can’t explain (even to myself) why.

  • Zingzing

    “I don’t care.”

    Great. Looks stupid, but do what you will. I don’t care, but words do have meanings, and unless the south is populated by Rhodes scholars who play sax and cigar white house interns while brokering peace in the middle east and bombing eastern europe, you’ve got a problem in your vocabulary. As a grammar nazi, you should be sentenced to standing on the rim of a toilet, pantless, shitting upon a toilet full of your own pants. It’s symbolic of your transgression.

    “that sorry state you come from”

    Come on now… Judging somebody by the state they were born in is pretty juvenile. Judge somebody by the state they live in. Flarda has issues, as I’m sure you’ll admit.

  • clavos

    Judging somebody by the state they were born in is pretty juvenile

    Yes it is. But that’s not what I was doing: you should brush up on your reading skills; I said nothing about Glenn, I was trashing the state (which is trashy — Glenn says so himself), not him.

    And you’re right about Florida: it’s full of old farts, refugees and crazies, makes for interesting living.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clav –

    I agree that I’ll be first in line to trash Mississippi – I always say it’s a great place to be away from – but I suspect that the ones you consider rednecks are not the same as the ones I consider rednecks.

    For one thing, Florida and its people are not part of the Deep South – and while your state has issues with racism (see the voter suppression efforts this past election), it simply doesn’t compare to the racism found in the small towns and countrysides of MS, AL, and LA, and to lesser extents in the other former confederate states. What’s more, you traveled in different – and more socially-respectable – circles than I…and while that might give you an advantage in many arguments, this particular argument isn’t one of whether the bird’s-eye view is better than the worm’s-eye view, but of who knows the lives and attitudes of the worms better.

    But in my experience, MS is certainly the worst of the lot. That statement may be due to familiarity-breeds-contempt bias, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate otherwise.

  • clavos

    I pretty much agree with your #41, Glenn, but please understand that I in no way compare Florida to other states located in the south. With the exception of a few pockets in the Panhandle, Florida is decidedly NOT a southern state; in fact, to a significant degree, it no longer even is an American state.

  • clavos

    And when I traveled the south on business all those years, I visited a LOT of small towns as well as the larger towns (the only real city in the south is Atlanta; New Orleans isn’t really southern, and all the rest are too small to be cities in the northern sense). My criterion was that if a town had even one travel agency, I went there at least twice a year, and I thus hit towns like Shuqualak (pop. 500) as well as some of the larger towns, like Starkville (pop. 25,000), home of Mississippi State Univ.

    I also traveled both Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and Arkansas similarly, and visited them all regularly for 30 years.

    I have a pretty good handle on the rural (and urban) Deep South.

  • Zingzing

    I do not think you know what “city” means.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    One can travel quite a bit through the South, but as with anywhere else, one won’t really get a handle on what the people are like unless one has lived there.

    The people Down South will give the shirts off their backs to help a stranger. They’ll happily share what they have to those in need. They have a cultural respect for elders that’s uncommon in the rest of the country. And – if you’re there for long enough for them to think they know you well enough to trust you – they’ll tell you what they really think.

    There’s things I really love about the South, about the culture, the food, the weather, the land…but the racism so permeates the way of life there that it seems normal. My comments about racism in the South have been compared to how some ex-smokers’ attitudes towards smoking…but smoking is still bad, and ex-smokers can still easily smell it. Same thing with racism – I can just about smell it everywhere I go – it’s all so obvious to someone who’s lived it.

    It’s getting better – I’ll give you that. I’ve seen two biracial couples there in the past couple years. Two is a laughable number anywhere else in America, but it’s two more than I’d ever seen before there.

    I went to MSU for a year back in 1980 – flunked out badly (it’s a long story).

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    and I thus hit towns like Shuqualak (pop. 500)

    Wouldn’t it be funny if Shuqualak’s main employer was an explosives factory, and the town became affectionately known as “Boom” Shuqualak?

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    They could open a resturant and call it Che’ Boom Shuqualak’s

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment # 28, Doc, in reference to my use of “Hussein,” you say, “That’s not why you do it and you know it.” Wow! Are you now a mind reader? Does BlogCritics know what a valuable asset it has in you?

    I make one (count it, one) reference to Snopes, and you say, “Of course it is Snopes that they are whining about.” Sorry, but my article was not whining, copied from “some whining right-wing blogger,” or about Snopes. The article, in case you didn’t bother to read it, presented the opinions reached after a study rather than some knee-jerk opinion, as well as the FACT that Obama did participate in Buycks-Robertson v. Citibank.

    Re: comment # 43, Clavos, you say, … and I thus hit towns like Shuqualak (pop. 500) as well as some of the larger towns, like Starkville (pop. 25,000), home of Mississippi State Univ.” I am genuinely impressed – no sarcasm here. I attended (and graduated) from MSU in 1971 (reference Glenn’s comment # 45). I passed through Shuqualak many times.

    I also find it rather difficult to conduct “debates” with people who offer rants (lengthy or otherwise), then insist that their rants are relevant to the topic(s) offered in my articles, or that their rants offer much more than their opinions.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    I make one (count it, one) reference to Snopes, and you say, “Of course it is Snopes that they are whining about.” Sorry, but my article was not whining, copied from “some whining right-wing blogger,” or about Snopes. The article, in case you didn’t bother to read it, presented the opinions reached after a study rather than some knee-jerk opinion, as well as the FACT that Obama did participate in Buycks-Robertson v. Citibank.

    Warren, I both read your article and responded to several of its points, not just the Snopes passage.

    Among those points, I challenged you to make a case for why Snopes is liberally biased and why their article about Obama’s involvement in Buycks-Roberson employs contorted logic, which thus far you have wriggled out of doing. I can only surmise that this is because you are unable to back up these assertions.

    I didn’t accuse you of plagiarizing “whining right-wing bloggers” for your article (although others may have, in which case your response should be to them): I anticipated that you might simply cite said bloggers in support of your claims about Snopes rather than make your own case.

    I’m sorry that you think I’m fixating on that one aspect of your article, but if you can’t even provide evidence for something you regard as so obvious, why should we take any of your other arguments seriously?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    May I just add that on re-reading a few of our respective comments I think we’re talking at cross-purposes regarding the “whining right-wing bloggers”.

    Your position is that you’d like me to show where you copy such bloggers in general. Mine is that I’d like you not to copy them in demonstrating the bias of Snopes.

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment # 1, Doc, here is my response to your “Snopes left-wing and tortured logic” point. Please try not to move your lips too much if you bother to read it,

    Using the Snopes article YOU cited, Snopes says, “The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with with requiring lenders to do business with people ‘who could not show proof that they could pay the money back’.” Snopes continues, “The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, ….” While Snopes may be “technically” correct, the practice of redlining was (and is) an effort by businesses to avoid losses. So Snopes tries to hide behind a technicality, while ignoring (on purpose?) what Citibank, et al, was trying to avoid – losses. If that isn’t an example of Snopes using “tortured logic,” then I don’t know what is.

    Snopes continues, “He [Obama] was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case.” I guess Snopes equates “junior member” with “being slightly pregnant.” So Snopes, by trying to minimize Obama’s role in the lawsuit and protect him, showed its left-wing credentials.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Warren, your argument is as feeble as I expected it would be.

    The lawsuit had nothing to do with compelling lenders to do business with people who couldn’t pay the money back. Redlining is the practice of denying loans to people based solely on where they live, without bothering to assess their repayment ability to begin with. That’s discrimination, and because it disproportionately affected clients who lived in majority African-American neighborhoods, it amounted, in this case, to racial discrimination, which is illegal under federal law.

    The argument that Buycks-Roberson forced banks to make bad loans is as daft as saying the government forced you to give up driving because it passed a law mandating the use of seatbelts.

    And frankly, if Citibank as a business was incapable of devising any other means of avoiding losses than redlining, then it deserved all the subsequent financial trouble it got itself into.

    The “urban legend” that Snopes was debunking goes further than identifying Obama as a member of the legal team: it claims he led it, which he demonstrably didn’t.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Warren, your argument is as feeble as I expected it would be

    For God’s sake Doc-You’ve missed Warren’s point…AGAIN. Facts and logic don’t exist unless yours agree with his!

    Sheesh… Just ask Clavos

  • Igor

    FNMA and CRA were both well-run when they operated under their original charters as Government Supported Entities run by civil service employees, and they both failed when we attempted to ¨privatize¨ them. They were victims of the ¨privatization¨ craze started in the Reagan era. Introducing private ownership into them had the result of increasing corruption by changing the goal from aid-to-homeowners to profits-for-banks.

    Thereby, public assets were converted to private pelf.

    The lesson to be learned is that it? a mistake to try to convert public agencies to private companies. Privatization doesnt work.

  • http://www.lunch.com/JSMaresca-Reviews-1-1.html Dr. Joseph S. Maresca

    There is simply no getting around bolstering the Section 8 housing to provide basic living quarters for the poor. The Section 8 program simply does not have the downside of lending large amounts of money to poor and lower income people who may not be able to afford to pay back the loans.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Section 8 is spectacularly underfunded. Wait time for a voucher can be 10 years or more, and that’s if you can even get on the waiting list in the first place – most housing authorities’ lists are usually closed.

    Even better than basic Section 8 – it costs more in the short term but can lead to big payoffs in the longer term – would be to expand the Family Self-Sufficiency program, in which the issuance of a voucher is tied to services designed to equip tenants so that they can break out of the cycle of poverty and no longer have to depend on government benefits. FSS participants are assigned a coordinator who sits down with them to work out goals and a plan to achieve them: for example, deciding on a college or vocational training course and applying for grants, scholarships or other sources of funds, things that the tenant wouldn’t have known how to do on their own.

    Participants who’ve boosted their earned income enough can even opt to have the government’s portion of their rent deposited into an escrow account, to be saved towards a down payment on a house.

  • Igor

    The Reagan policy of “privatization” ruined the economy in several ways:

    1-replaced agencies under political leadership responsive to voters with private divisions of private companies responsive only to BoD demands for profits.

    2-replaced a hard-won structure of professional Civil Service management with an insecure and irresponsible private structure.

    3-inflated subcontract costs by replacing employees with private company departments.

    4-negated benefits of competition with sole-source contracts instead of subcontract competition.

%d bloggers like this: