PR and Max make a good couple.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Dedicated wrote:
Let’s put it this way: “stereotypes” and “bigotry” kept me from buying a house back in 2006 when all the other cretins like yourself were talking about how great the Mexican housing boom was for everyone. How’s it working out for us now?
I’ve got data. You’ve got the tired old “racism!” whine. Bye.
It’s obvious (very much so) that you’ve got a lot of hate towards minorities and Mexicans in particular. I happen to be an American of Latino ethnicity. I was born here as were my parents, but my maternal grandparents were born in Mexico and my paternal grandparents have been here for Centuries and are of Spanish and Native American descent. We are what’s called Mestizos. My parents are college educated and very successful as are most of my friends and relatives who are of Mestizo origin. I just happen to find your insinuations of ‘Mexicans’ as dumb, violent, cheats, to be very offensive and was compelled to say something about it. But, I do know it’s akin to pissing in the wind as it won’t budge you from your angry and hateful position. My only comfort comes from knowing that your anger and hate will be far more damaging to yourself in the end then to anyone else.
As you said Bye and it’s good we’ll likely never meet in person.
D
Actually, if minority status helped these people get loans, it’s very pertinent to the discussion. In addition understanding the language, understanding financial maters, and income are all pertinent discussion topics. If you donâ??t like that, itâ??s your prerogative.
Either way, you are a very intolerant person. Just because someone has a different view than you, you thinly threaten physical violence? Why then, should anyone be tolerant of you?
I would even bet your accusations of racism and “hatred of minorities” is based in large part on the previous poster being white. If he were a minority or more specifically Mexican, I have no doubt your opinion would change. That means that you are basing your judgments of people on race. In fact, that makes you racist.
Pot, meet kettle.
[/quote]
I’ve stated this before, but I find it funny that people get so upset when you science and statistics to predict behavior. All of the sudden it is racism, stereotyping or bigotry.
SEriously are they trying to say that people of a similar genetic make up, brought up in similar environments (receiving similar stimulus) will not behave similarly in given circumstances, will not be prone to disply given traits or personality characteristics, to deny that shows how illogical your thinking is.
These concepts have already been supported by epidemiological studies of race and culture and susceptability to diseases, or rates of of behavioral induced disease such as type II diabetes and obesity.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Dedicated wrote:
Let’s put it this way: “stereotypes” and “bigotry” kept me from buying a house back in 2006 when all the other cretins like yourself were talking about how great the Mexican housing boom was for everyone. How’s it working out for us now?
I’ve got data. You’ve got the tired old “racism!” whine. Bye.
It’s obvious (very much so) that you’ve got a lot of hate towards minorities and Mexicans in particular. I happen to be an American of Latino ethnicity. I was born here as were my parents, but my maternal grandparents were born in Mexico and my paternal grandparents have been here for Centuries and are of Spanish and Native American descent. We are what’s called Mestizos. My parents are college educated and very successful as are most of my friends and relatives who are of Mestizo origin. I just happen to find your insinuations of ‘Mexicans’ as dumb, violent, cheats, to be very offensive and was compelled to say something about it. But, I do know it’s akin to pissing in the wind as it won’t budge you from your angry and hateful position. My only comfort comes from knowing that your anger and hate will be far more damaging to yourself in the end then to anyone else.
As you said Bye and it’s good we’ll likely never meet in person.
D
Actually, if minority status helped these people get loans, it’s very pertinent to the discussion. In addition understanding the language, understanding financial maters, and income are all pertinent discussion topics. If you donÃ?¢??t like that, itÃ?¢??s your prerogative.
Either way, you are a very intolerant person. Just because someone has a different view than you, you thinly threaten physical violence? Why then, should anyone be tolerant of you?
I would even bet your accusations of racism and “hatred of minorities” is based in large part on the previous poster being white. If he were a minority or more specifically Mexican, I have no doubt your opinion would change. That means that you are basing your judgments of people on race. In fact, that makes you racist.
Pot, meet kettle.
I’ve stated this before, but I find it funny that people get so upset when you science and statistics to predict behavior. All of the sudden it is racism, stereotyping or bigotry.
SEriously are they trying to say that people of a similar genetic make up, brought up in similar environments (receiving similar stimulus) will not behave similarly in given circumstances, will not be prone to disply given traits or personality characteristics, to deny that shows how illogical your thinking is.
These concepts have already been supported by epidemiological studies of race and culture and susceptability to diseases, or rates of of behavioral induced disease such as type II diabetes and obesity. [/quote]
I agree with this. Racism is thrown around way too frequently. I mean there are certain contexts where you need to be aware of certain charachteristics of not only race, but of social circumstances as well. Dedicated has stated his heritage, yet if I was walking down the street and passing him, I would very likley not elevate my awareness due to his presence. He does not fit the profile of the segment of his race that bears noting in that situation. However if a person of his race who did look and act like the segment of his race which holds negative behaviors. Baggy clothes, gold, walking with an exaggerated swager, all these things would cause me to profile this individual and raise my awareness around them. He might be a very nice person and if I were to talk to him I would not approach him any differently until he earned a different response, but I would be wary of him until such a time as I could grow comfortable with him as a person.
This is not racism, it is just how the brain works. Weather the stereotypes are 100% accurate or not, they are there. If an individual chooses to align themselves with a certain steryotype, they have to accept how the rest of society is going to respond to them. Race alone does not induce a negative reaction from me. But race combined with other factors can cause a negative reaction.
Now all that being said, there are white individuals, who if they present themselves a certain way will also get similar treatment from myself. There are white douchebags, black douchebags, mexican douchebags etc… Because the douchebags tend to look and act a certain way, it is not racism for my brain to be aware of that.
V
Yes, it was all the poor people’s fault. Those poor giant investment banks had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, honest! They are the victims! There there, take a $1 billion bonus. That’s better. BAD POOR PEOPLE!
You guys are siding with the rapist. Not that this is new. Anything to justify privilege. Anyway, here’s an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article:
"Many policy makers and ordinary people blame the rise of foreclosures squarely on subprime mortgage lenders who presumably misled borrowers into taking out complex loans at low initial interest rates. Those hapless individuals were then supposedly unable to make the higher monthly payments when their mortgage rates reset upwards.
But the focus on subprimes ignores the widely available industry facts (reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association) that 51% of all foreclosed homes had prime loans, not subprime, and that the foreclosure rate for prime loans grew by 488% compared to a growth rate of 200% for subprime foreclosures. (These percentages are based on the period since the steep ascent in foreclosures began – the third quarter of 2006 – during which more than 4.3 million homes went into foreclosure.)
Sharing the blame in the popular imagination are other loans where lenders were largely at fault – such as “liar loans,” where lenders never attempted to validate a borrower’s income or assets."
Not that facts affect your analyses, but whatever.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes, it was all the poor people’s fault. Those poor giant investment banks had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, honest! They are the victims! There there, take a $1 billion bonus. That’s better. BAD POOR PEOPLE!
You guys are siding with the rapist. Not that this is new. Anything to justify privilege. Anyway, here’s an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article:
"Many policy makers and ordinary people blame the rise of foreclosures squarely on subprime mortgage lenders who presumably misled borrowers into taking out complex loans at low initial interest rates. Those hapless individuals were then supposedly unable to make the higher monthly payments when their mortgage rates reset upwards.
But the focus on subprimes ignores the widely available industry facts (reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association) that 51% of all foreclosed homes had prime loans, not subprime, and that the foreclosure rate for prime loans grew by 488% compared to a growth rate of 200% for subprime foreclosures. (These percentages are based on the period since the steep ascent in foreclosures began – the third quarter of 2006 – during which more than 4.3 million homes went into foreclosure.)
Sharing the blame in the popular imagination are other loans where lenders were largely at fault – such as “liar loans,” where lenders never attempted to validate a borrower’s income or assets."
Not that facts affect your analyses, but whatever.[/quote]
Wait, no mention of government intervention when assigning blame? there is plenty to go around. however withing the context of responsibility, individuals signed contracts, individuals violated them. that is the ultimate responsibility.
so, sub-primes are 49% of the foreclosures… pray tell what percent are they of the total mortgages?
[quote]
Now all that being said, there are white individuals, who if they present themselves a certain way will also get similar treatment from myself. There are white douchebags, black douchebags, mexican douchebags etc… Because the douchebags tend to look and act a certain way, it is not racism for my brain to be aware of that.
V [/quote]
V, that is the point. I agree the human race is filled with good and bad and everything in between. This applies to all races. What stimulated my input were namely a couple of posters who to me were attributing negative and hostile attributes to a whole race of people. It’s as silly as if I made a judgement on the white/anglos based off of the aryan brotherhood or klu klux klan or Italians on the behavior of the mafia.
How do you think I felt as someone of Mexican heritage reading the following which was posted in another thread:
"you are right, many Latino cultures despise Mexicans because they give all Latinos a bad names. Typically speaking, they are the most crass, crude, an vulgar of the Latino people. I have known many people from Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua who are very nice and pleasant people. They do not like to be associated with people of Mexico. "
This isn’t calling out the behavior of ignorant people ie gangsters, criminals, or loan cheaters, this is painting a whole race of people under a vile and ugly brush. If that isn’t bigoted I don’t know what is. I’d be just as offended If someone from Mexico made a negative generalization about a white person like that.
Poverty a lack of education, ignorance, affects people the same whether their white, brown, black, or yellow.
D
If you define yourself by your culture, you have a right to be upset with the comments in this thread. But then others have the right to associate with the conduct of others in your culture.
This is where, in my mind, multi-culturalism makes no sense. To do away with all stereotypes is to do away with culture. To preserve cultural identity is to identify with stereotypes. The fact that some of these stereotypes get label as a positive and fall under the word “culture” is semantics. Not all Mexicans like spicy things, so the “cultural heritage” of spicy Mexican food, is in fact nothing more than a stereotype. To you, it’s culture if you a personally proud of it, and racism if it offends you. When in fact both are nothing more than statistical generalizations of a population.
Either you identify yourself with the statistical generalization of a group, or you don’t. This current PC mess of only doing it when considered convenient is complete BS. You don’t want stereotypes, fine, do away with all culture.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes, it was all the poor people’s fault. Those poor giant investment banks had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, honest! They are the victims! There there, take a $1 billion bonus. That’s better. BAD POOR PEOPLE!
You guys are siding with the rapist. Not that this is new. Anything to justify privilege. Anyway, here’s an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article:
"Many policy makers and ordinary people blame the rise of foreclosures squarely on subprime mortgage lenders who presumably misled borrowers into taking out complex loans at low initial interest rates. Those hapless individuals were then supposedly unable to make the higher monthly payments when their mortgage rates reset upwards.
But the focus on subprimes ignores the widely available industry facts (reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association) that 51% of all foreclosed homes had prime loans, not subprime, and that the foreclosure rate for prime loans grew by 488% compared to a growth rate of 200% for subprime foreclosures. (These percentages are based on the period since the steep ascent in foreclosures began – the third quarter of 2006 – during which more than 4.3 million homes went into foreclosure.)
Sharing the blame in the popular imagination are other loans where lenders were largely at fault – such as “liar loans,” where lenders never attempted to validate a borrower’s income or assets."
Not that facts affect your analyses, but whatever.[/quote]
Why must I take responsibility for the bad decisions of both sides – the lender and the borrower?
It isn’t like these loans were forced on poor people and it isn’t like lenders were forced to make these loans. Quit oversimplifying.
You fail again!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you define yourself by your culture, you have a right to be upset with the comments in this thread. But then others have the right to associate with the conduct of others in your culture.
This is where, in my mind, multi-culturalism makes no sense. To do away with all stereotypes is to do away with culture. To preserve cultural identity is to identify with stereotypes. The fact that some of these stereotypes get label as a positive and fall under the word “culture” is semantics. Not all Mexicans like spicy things, so the “cultural heritage” of spicy Mexican food, is in fact nothing more than a stereotype. To you, it’s culture if you a personally proud of it, and racism if it offends you. When in fact both are nothing more than statistical generalizations of a population.
Either you identify yourself with the statistical generalization of a group, or you don’t. This current PC mess of only doing it when considered convenient is complete BS. You don’t want stereotypes, fine, do away with all culture.
[/quote]
What is your heritage? Whatever it is if every negative stereotype ever said about your heritage was used to describe you, you wouldn’t be offended or bothered if it realistically didn’t apply? If so you are a wonderfully advanced person and I applaud you for that. I have no problem in saying that it doesn’t apply to me. I take pride in my heritage, in being American, in being a man, in my family, it’s human nature to take some pride in where you come from, who you are. And, I don’t make any apologies in defending what I’m proud of if I feel it’s being attacked especially unjustly.
Lets just part with me saying this words, we don’t agree and likely never would. And, that’s okay just the way it is.
D
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you define yourself by your culture, you have a right to be upset with the comments in this thread. But then others have the right to associate with the conduct of others in your culture.
This is where, in my mind, multi-culturalism makes no sense. To do away with all stereotypes is to do away with culture. To preserve cultural identity is to identify with stereotypes. The fact that some of these stereotypes get label as a positive and fall under the word “culture” is semantics. Not all Mexicans like spicy things, so the “cultural heritage” of spicy Mexican food, is in fact nothing more than a stereotype. To you, it’s culture if you a personally proud of it, and racism if it offends you. When in fact both are nothing more than statistical generalizations of a population.
Either you identify yourself with the statistical generalization of a group, or you don’t. This current PC mess of only doing it when considered convenient is complete BS. You don’t want stereotypes, fine, do away with all culture.
[/quote]
Culture is not static. It is the sum of human learning and ideas. It changes as belief, knowledge, and language change.
In all of human history there have been many cultures that have come and gone and in between are the amalgam of the remaining cultures intermixing with each other. Though we may not recognize “our culture” 100 years from now we can be fairly certain the good ideas will probably flourish and the inane ideas will get wiped out.
…or maybe I am being naive in my belief that humanity, in general, will have the foresight to recognize what ideas will benefit humanity and adopt those ideas over the inane ones.
[quote]Dedicated wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If you define yourself by your culture, you have a right to be upset with the comments in this thread. But then others have the right to associate with the conduct of others in your culture.
This is where, in my mind, multi-culturalism makes no sense. To do away with all stereotypes is to do away with culture. To preserve cultural identity is to identify with stereotypes. The fact that some of these stereotypes get label as a positive and fall under the word “culture” is semantics. Not all Mexicans like spicy things, so the “cultural heritage” of spicy Mexican food, is in fact nothing more than a stereotype. To you, it’s culture if you a personally proud of it, and racism if it offends you. When in fact both are nothing more than statistical generalizations of a population.
Either you identify yourself with the statistical generalization of a group, or you don’t. This current PC mess of only doing it when considered convenient is complete BS. You don’t want stereotypes, fine, do away with all culture.
What is your heritage?
[/quote]
American, Southern, Scott-Irish, probably Danish before that…
More specifically my heritage only goes back 26 years.
notice that you have to ask, I’ve never identified myself with any group in the discussion.
When did that happen to you?
I agree, but being proud of what groups you belong to is racism. There is no logical difference in saying “I’m glad my ancestors were vikings” (viking is really an action not a people if you want to get PC about it and correctly call them Danes) and saying “I’m glad my people weren’t not vikings.”
Why do you get to decide what does and does not get attributed to your culture?
[quote]
Lets just part with me saying this words, we don’t agree and likely never would. And, that’s okay just the way it is.
D[/quote]
I haven’t really spoken on my beliefs, so you don’t know.
[quote]
Why do you get to decide what does and does not get attributed to your culture?
Lets just part with me saying this words, we don’t agree and likely never would. And, that’s okay just the way it is.
D
I haven’t really spoken on my beliefs, so you don’t know.[/quote]
My problem is the attributes I’ve read hear, ‘they are the most crass, crude, an vulgar’ ‘they shoot at people’ ‘they threaten my wife’, can be attributed to any group of people regardless of race and even if applicable are not solely because of race. Why do you feel you get to decide what can be applied to a particular race?
You have in fact given a window into what your beliefs are with your statements. You seem to like to win an argument on technical points of how words are used. I have no interest in playing that game. I think it’s pretty straight forward what I have said and where I’m coming from and again, finally, you see it differently and I accept that.
Take care,
D
[quote]Dedicated wrote:
Why do you get to decide what does and does not get attributed to your culture?
Lets just part with me saying this words, we don’t agree and likely never would. And, that’s okay just the way it is.
D
I haven’t really spoken on my beliefs, so you don’t know.
My problem is the attributes I’ve read hear, ‘they are the most crass, crude, an vulgar’ ‘they shoot at people’ ‘they threaten my wife’, can be attributed to any group of people regardless of race and even if applicable are not solely because of race. Why do you feel you get to decide what can be applied to a particular race?
[/quote]
My point was that in order to make your argument, someone has to, and no one has that right.
Which of my arguments was “technicalities”? Because there were lots you never addressed.
[quote]
I have no interest in playing that game. I think it’s pretty straight forward what I have said and where I’m coming from and again, finally, you see it differently and I accept that.
Take care,
D[/quote]
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes, it was all the poor people’s fault. Those poor giant investment banks had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, honest! They are the victims! There there, take a $1 billion bonus. That’s better. BAD POOR PEOPLE!
You guys are siding with the rapist. Not that this is new. Anything to justify privilege. Anyway, here’s an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article:
"Many policy makers and ordinary people blame the rise of foreclosures squarely on subprime mortgage lenders who presumably misled borrowers into taking out complex loans at low initial interest rates. Those hapless individuals were then supposedly unable to make the higher monthly payments when their mortgage rates reset upwards.
But the focus on subprimes ignores the widely available industry facts (reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association) that 51% of all foreclosed homes had prime loans, not subprime, and that the foreclosure rate for prime loans grew by 488% compared to a growth rate of 200% for subprime foreclosures. (These percentages are based on the period since the steep ascent in foreclosures began – the third quarter of 2006 – during which more than 4.3 million homes went into foreclosure.)
Sharing the blame in the popular imagination are other loans where lenders were largely at fault – such as “liar loans,” where lenders never attempted to validate a borrower’s income or assets."
Not that facts affect your analyses, but whatever.[/quote]
Somehow you have that backasswards.
If we are against bailing out the poor, what do you think we feel about bailing out the uber-rich?
It is just, and I think we already had that discussion, if you establish the principle that a government can take money by force and give it to someone else it is only a matter of time before the politically well connected fleece the rest.
If you build it, and you want to build it big time, they will come. All of them, not just the ones you want to come, it is as simple as that.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:It isn’t like these loans were forced on poor people and it isn’t like lenders were forced to make these loans. Quit oversimplifying.
You fail again![/quote]
Right, it’s not that simple, but that was the goal–to get you to stop oversimplifying.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes, it was all the poor people’s fault. Those poor giant investment banks had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, honest! They are the victims! There there, take a $1 billion bonus. That’s better. BAD POOR PEOPLE!
You guys are siding with the rapist. Not that this is new. Anything to justify privilege. Anyway, here’s an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article:
"Many policy makers and ordinary people blame the rise of foreclosures squarely on subprime mortgage lenders who presumably misled borrowers into taking out complex loans at low initial interest rates. Those hapless individuals were then supposedly unable to make the higher monthly payments when their mortgage rates reset upwards.
But the focus on subprimes ignores the widely available industry facts (reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association) that 51% of all foreclosed homes had prime loans, not subprime, and that the foreclosure rate for prime loans grew by 488% compared to a growth rate of 200% for subprime foreclosures. (These percentages are based on the period since the steep ascent in foreclosures began – the third quarter of 2006 – during which more than 4.3 million homes went into foreclosure.)
Sharing the blame in the popular imagination are other loans where lenders were largely at fault – such as “liar loans,” where lenders never attempted to validate a borrower’s income or assets."
Not that facts affect your analyses, but whatever.
Somehow you have that backasswards.
If we are against bailing out the poor, what do you think we feel about bailing out the uber-rich?
It is just, and I think we already had that discussion, if you establish the principle that a government can take money by force and give it to someone else it is only a matter of time before the politically well connected fleece the rest.
If you build it, and you want to build it big time, they will come. All of them, not just the ones you want to come, it is as simple as that.
[/quote]
Economically “connected” (rich) = politically well-connected. The rich are the government. Stop seperating the government and private industry, as the one exists to protect and serve the other.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Economically “connected” (rich) = politically well-connected. The rich are the government. Stop seperating the government and private industry, as the one exists to protect and serve the other.[/quote]
Yes, and your ideology reinforces it.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes, it was all the poor people’s fault. Those poor giant investment banks had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, honest! They are the victims! There there, take a $1 billion bonus. That’s better. BAD POOR PEOPLE!
You guys are siding with the rapist. Not that this is new. Anything to justify privilege. Anyway, here’s an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article:
"Many policy makers and ordinary people blame the rise of foreclosures squarely on subprime mortgage lenders who presumably misled borrowers into taking out complex loans at low initial interest rates. Those hapless individuals were then supposedly unable to make the higher monthly payments when their mortgage rates reset upwards.
But the focus on subprimes ignores the widely available industry facts (reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association) that 51% of all foreclosed homes had prime loans, not subprime, and that the foreclosure rate for prime loans grew by 488% compared to a growth rate of 200% for subprime foreclosures. (These percentages are based on the period since the steep ascent in foreclosures began – the third quarter of 2006 – during which more than 4.3 million homes went into foreclosure.)
Sharing the blame in the popular imagination are other loans where lenders were largely at fault – such as “liar loans,” where lenders never attempted to validate a borrower’s income or assets."
Not that facts affect your analyses, but whatever.[/quote]
I think the person who uses a hammer and sickle for their avatar really isn’t worth much of a hearing. But to answer your point, of course foreclosures in “prime mortgages” are going to go up in a recession like this. People are getting laid off. You would expect to see people start to lose their houses if they have no money to pay for them, right? That’s some real good sleuthing you did there, komrade. We’re trying to get to the bottom of how the whole mess got started in the first place - the cause of the recession, not its effects.
You need to go read Solzhenitsyn and Suvorov and stop posting CYA idiocy from the open-borders rag the W$J who supported all of these illegals coming here in the first place. It’s nothing more than squid ink designed to distract us from noticing that all of these illegals coming here didn’t work out quite the way they told us it would.
So, which part of the USSR did you like the best: the millions killed in the gulag, the Cold War, the proxy wars with the United States, or the equality of outcomes (everyone poor except for those working for the Party, the KGB, or the higher-ups in the Army)?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes, it was all the poor people’s fault. Those poor giant investment banks had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, honest! They are the victims! There there, take a $1 billion bonus. That’s better. BAD POOR PEOPLE!
You guys are siding with the rapist. Not that this is new. Anything to justify privilege. Anyway, here’s an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article:
"Many policy makers and ordinary people blame the rise of foreclosures squarely on subprime mortgage lenders who presumably misled borrowers into taking out complex loans at low initial interest rates. Those hapless individuals were then supposedly unable to make the higher monthly payments when their mortgage rates reset upwards.
But the focus on subprimes ignores the widely available industry facts (reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association) that 51% of all foreclosed homes had prime loans, not subprime, and that the foreclosure rate for prime loans grew by 488% compared to a growth rate of 200% for subprime foreclosures. (These percentages are based on the period since the steep ascent in foreclosures began – the third quarter of 2006 – during which more than 4.3 million homes went into foreclosure.)
Sharing the blame in the popular imagination are other loans where lenders were largely at fault – such as “liar loans,” where lenders never attempted to validate a borrower’s income or assets."
Not that facts affect your analyses, but whatever.
Wait, no mention of government intervention when assigning blame? there is plenty to go around. however withing the context of responsibility, individuals signed contracts, individuals violated them. that is the ultimate responsibility.
so, sub-primes are 49% of the foreclosures… pray tell what percent are they of the total mortgages?[/quote]
I also can’t help but wonder how many of these “prime” mortgages were actually CRA commitments:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes, it was all the poor people’s fault. Those poor giant investment banks had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, honest! They are the victims! There there, take a $1 billion bonus. That’s better. BAD POOR PEOPLE!
You guys are siding with the rapist. Not that this is new. Anything to justify privilege. Anyway, here’s an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article:
"Many policy makers and ordinary people blame the rise of foreclosures squarely on subprime mortgage lenders who presumably misled borrowers into taking out complex loans at low initial interest rates. Those hapless individuals were then supposedly unable to make the higher monthly payments when their mortgage rates reset upwards.
But the focus on subprimes ignores the widely available industry facts (reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association) that 51% of all foreclosed homes had prime loans, not subprime, and that the foreclosure rate for prime loans grew by 488% compared to a growth rate of 200% for subprime foreclosures. (These percentages are based on the period since the steep ascent in foreclosures began – the third quarter of 2006 – during which more than 4.3 million homes went into foreclosure.)
Sharing the blame in the popular imagination are other loans where lenders were largely at fault – such as “liar loans,” where lenders never attempted to validate a borrower’s income or assets."
Not that facts affect your analyses, but whatever.
Somehow you have that backasswards.
If we are against bailing out the poor, what do you think we feel about bailing out the uber-rich?
It is just, and I think we already had that discussion, if you establish the principle that a government can take money by force and give it to someone else it is only a matter of time before the politically well connected fleece the rest.
If you build it, and you want to build it big time, they will come. All of them, not just the ones you want to come, it is as simple as that.
Economically “connected” (rich) = politically well-connected. The rich are the government. Stop seperating the government and private industry, as the one exists to protect and serve the other.[/quote]
YES!
And that is why us libertarians want it small, so that the inevitable corruption is kept to a minimum because they have very little to be corrupt with.