wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:41 am, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:

you mean
I mean that it isn't wrong. CRA isn't the whole story, but it is the
first chapter of the whole story.-

no moreso than the letter 'a' is the entire dictionary.

No, *much* more so. CRA was just the first step toward the catastrophe,
but it decidedly was such a step. The Clinton complicity in 1994 was
directly based on it. The politically motivated destruction of
underwriting standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was specifically to
get them to buy CRA mortgages, but once the standards were eliminated,
there was an explosion in other non-CRA subprime lending. But CRA
started it, and accelerated it in 1994.

wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:48 am, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 9:39 am, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message
#
# says the guy who thinks obama has moved the US capital to havana.
#
One has to wonder why you imagine to making stupid fantasy accusations about
the person who disagrees with you, will support you claims in any way
Why is it that you are so stupid as to make far-fetched claims about other
peoplem, instead of arguing the issue ?
now let's see...we have the right wing which, [crap snipped]
but it's NOT causality when the policies that bush followed destroyed
our economy and trashed the middle class
You can't show that any of his policies did any of that. *THAT'S* the
lack of causality, dumb ****.
really? cutting capital gains and causing the wall street
Cutting capital gains tax caused no debacle
#
# sure did. it increased the deficit.
#
NO it did NOT !
cutting taxes with no revenue increase and no decrease in spending
NECESSARILY causes an increase in the deficit.
Not a debacle per se.

# the US isn't rich. we're a debtor nation
Being in debt doesn't mean one isn't rich.
ROFLMAO!!! so to you the richest guy in the world is one who's
bankrupt??!!!
Being in debt does not mean bankruptcy.
#
# fine. you go tell me how we're going to pay the bills we racked up.
# guess what the definition of bankruptcy is?
Well let's see, used an equity loan to make some upgrades to my house, even
though I have the same amount of money available in my investments
So I have debt, but I'm not bankrupt
See how that works....
and wall street sold 62 TRILLION in CDO's
You don't know what that means.

another way of whimpering your way out of an argument.

Another way of kicking your ****ing teeth in. I'd do it in person if I
had the chance.


I think your problem is that you are functionning in a black-white, on-off,
all-or-nothing, kind of thinking mode
You seem incapable of imagining that there is something between those
extreme states...'
and you seem to want to ignore the entire history of the united states
in the last year.
No economic "collapse", no Wall Street "debacle". You're throwing
around words you don't understand.-

says the guy who thinks everything in the US is just fine 'cuz the
rich aren't complaining

On Sep 24, 11:32*am, H the K wrote:
On 9/24/09 11:25 AM, wf3h wrote:





On Sep 24, 11:15 am, *wrote:
*wrote in message

#
# says the guy who stays awake at night terrified that obama is
# president

LOL
* * *Still living in la-la-land are you ?

Thanks to Obama, I have doubledd my wealth in the last year
That means I sleep very well, and am happy that the incompetent idiot got
elected

he can't tell us WHY obama's incompetent

he thinks obama's been president for a year

so that makes him a typical right winger...

There you go again, projecting ignorant nonsense
At least you're consistently stupid you loopy idiot

#
# *ah. projecting. yes, they teach you that in psych 101;. *but since
# you're struggling through grade school, i assume someone mentioned
# that term to you. probably rush, after his rehab from drug use.

And there you go again making stupid presumptions again
By the way, what is it with you idiots being so fixated on "rush" ?
Does he terrify you that much that you see him everywhere ?

he makes us laugh because it's like watching someone read a fairy tale
to children and having them believe it's real.

So they were Democrats

#
# and now they're republicans.

Feel free to name any current Republicans who are members of the KKK
* * *Take as many screens as you need

feel free to do so with democrats.

and, of course, you guys had strom thurmond...a guy joe wilson
defended as an upright american...

Was it Strom or some other racist slimeball politician whose mixed race
baby Wilson denied?


yeah it was strom...strom, a fine, upstanding, black raping slave
justfying right winger...

On Sep 24, 11:32*am, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:41 am, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:

you mean
I mean that it isn't wrong. *CRA isn't the whole story, but it is the
first chapter of the whole story.-

no moreso than the letter 'a' is the entire dictionary.

No, *much* more so. *CRA was just the first step toward the catastrophe,
but it decidedly was such a step.

uh no.

the first step was greed on the part of wall street. having convinced
the right wing to sing the song of deregulation, they treated the
american middle class like a buffet.


*The Clinton complicity in 1994 was
directly based on it. *

well...no. the right wing sings the reagan mantra that the govt IS the
problem, so the regulators got out of the way of the greedy *******s
of wall street, courtesy of phil gramm and his enron VP wife.


The politically motivated destruction of
underwriting standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was specifically to
get them to buy CRA mortgages,

well...no. the 62 TRILLION dollars in CDO's had nothing whatsoever to
do with fannie mae and freddie mac. nothing.


but once the standards were eliminated,
there was an explosion in other non-CRA subprime lending. *But CRA
started it, and accelerated it in 1994.

ah. so the problem was wall street greed.

you were wrong in attributing this to CRA. it was the greedy
unregulated *******s on wall street.

which is what i said.

wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 11:32 am, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:41 am, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:
you mean
I mean that it isn't wrong. CRA isn't the whole story, but it is the
first chapter of the whole story.-
no moreso than the letter 'a' is the entire dictionary.
No, *much* more so. CRA was just the first step toward the catastrophe,
but it decidedly was such a step.

uh no.

Uh...YES


the first step was greed on the part of wall street.

"Greed" - ha ha ha ha ha! When you and the ACORN deadbeats want more,
you "objectively" deserve it; but when your betters want more, it's
"greed". HA HA HA HA HA!


The Clinton complicity in 1994 was
directly based on it.

well...no.

Yes.


The politically motivated destruction of
underwriting standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was specifically to
get them to buy CRA mortgages,

well...no.

Yes.


the 62 TRILLION dollars in CDO's

You keep saying that as if it has some meaning. It doesn't.


had nothing whatsoever to
do with fannie mae and freddie mac. nothing.

*EVERYTHING* to do with it, dummy. The "CDOs" - my, how you like
bandying about terms you think make you sound sophisticated - *are* to a
very great extent the mortgages that were made under the collapsed
lending standards.


but once the standards were eliminated,
there was an explosion in other non-CRA subprime lending. But CRA
started it, and accelerated it in 1994.

ah. so the problem was wall street greed.

No, the problem was the collapse in lending standards that began with
CRA, in which the federal government brought intense pressure to bear on
banks to lend to uncreditworthy deadbeats in ghettos.


you were wrong in attributing this to CRA.

I am right, of course.

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 24, 9:39 am, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message
#
# says the guy who thinks obama has moved the US capital to havana.
#

One has to wonder why you imagine to making stupid fantasy accusations
about
the person who disagrees with you, will support you claims in any way
Why is it that you are so stupid as to make far-fetched claims about other
peoplem, instead of arguing the issue ?
#
# now let's see...we have the right wing which, in its haze, calls obama
# a kenyan indonesian muslim enemy alien socialist communist
#
# THEN complains that its delusions are called delusions.

There you go again
You really can't seem to help yourself
Have you ever considered getting professional help for your problem ?





but it's NOT causality when the policies that bush followed
destroyed
our economy and trashed the middle class
You can't show that any of his policies did any of that. *THAT'S* the
lack of causality, dumb ****.

really? cutting capital gains and causing the wall street

Cutting capital gains tax caused no debacle

#
# sure did. it increased the deficit.
#

NO it did NOT !
#
# cutting taxes with no revenue increase and no decrease in spending
# NECESSARILY causes an increase in the deficit. i realize you right
# wingers can't count, but have a 4th grader explain it to you.


Too bad that cutting taxes, causes a revenue increase because with less
taxes people and companies have more money to spend
With more money to spend, people and companies buy more, other companies
produce more, and therefore hire people to increase producton, and thus
increases their revenues and thus increase the TOTAL amount of taxes paid,
even though the tax rate is lower.
This is simple economics.
Too bad that the followers of Marxs aren't even smart enough to understand
Econ 101 and 102.



# the US isn't rich. we're a debtor nation
Being in debt doesn't mean one isn't rich.

ROFLMAO!!! so to you the richest guy in the world is one who's
bankrupt??!!!

Being in debt does not mean bankruptcy.

#
# fine. you go tell me how we're going to pay the bills we racked up.
# guess what the definition of bankruptcy is?

Well let's see, used an equity loan to make some upgrades to my house,
even
though I have the same amount of money available in my investments
So I have debt, but I'm not bankrupt
See how that works....
#
# and wall street sold 62 TRILLION in CDO's without the reserves to
# cover them...so they created a debt obligation...

And that was thanks to the deregulation that was voted in during Democrat
control of Congress.

#
# then when the debt came due and they couldn't pay it, they decided to
# socialize their risk and have the middle class pay for it.

And again, it was the Democrats who controlled both houses when those
bailout laws were voted in. It should also be noted that those laws were
loaded with ALL KINDS of PORK from which Democrats benefitted, and which
Obamba contrary to his election promises did NOTHING to eradicate.


#
# so no, that's not how debt works unless you're a right winger who
# believes in the tooth fairy

Too bad that you keep missing the most important aspect which is
It was the Democrats who controlled the Houses when:
a) the system was deregulated
b) the bailouts, loaded with pork to the gills, was voted in.



I think your problem is that you are functionning in a black-white,
on-off,
all-or-nothing, kind of thinking mode
You seem incapable of imagining that there is something between those
extreme states...'
#
# and you seem to want to ignore the entire history of the united states
# in the last year.

I don't
I'll just remind you that in the last 3 (not one but THRE) years, it was the
Democrats who crontrolled BOTH houses of Congress.
Apparently you not only ignore it, you are IGNORANT of it.

really? cutting capital gains and causing the wall street

Cutting capital gains tax caused no debacle

#
# sure did. it increased the deficit.
#

NO it did NOT !

#
# cutting taxes with no revenue increase and no decrease in spending
# NECESSARILY causes an increase in the deficit. i realize you right
# wingers can't count, but have a 4th grader explain it to you.

Too bad that cutting taxes, causes a revenue increase because with less
taxes people and companies have more money to spend

really? care to prove that? the laffer curve has been discredited.
this is ANOTHER right wing fairy tale.

where's the data. rush limbaugh's drug induced delusions don't count

With more money to spend, people and companies buy more, other companies
produce more, and therefore hire people to increase producton, and thus
increases their revenues and thus increase the TOTAL amount of taxes paid,
even though the tax rate is lower.
This is simple economics.

except, of course, the rich NEVER cut taxes on the middle class. the
rich have cut taxes for THEMSELVES but not for the middle class

Too bad that the followers of Marxs aren't even smart enough to understand
Econ 101 and 102.

and you havent even graduated from high school




#
# and wall street sold 62 TRILLION in CDO's without the reserves to
# cover them...so they created a debt obligation...

And that was thanks to the deregulation that was voted in during Democrat
control of Congress.

uh...no. the bill was passed by the 106th congress...both houses of
which were controlled by the GOP

you're such a whore for the right wing you'll lie about anything,
won't you?


#
# then when the debt came due and they couldn't pay it, they decided to
# socialize their risk and have the middle class pay for it.

And again, it was the Democrats who controlled both houses when those
bailout laws were voted in. It should also be noted that those laws were
loaded with ALL KINDS of PORK from which Democrats benefitted, and which
Obamba contrary to his election promises did NOTHING to eradicate.

uh...no. it was proposed by a GOP president, and a GOP appointed fed
chairman. at that point the GOP had rigged the game. we had no choice

what a whore you are


#
# so no, that's not how debt works unless you're a right winger who
# believes in the tooth fairy

Too bad that you keep missing the most important aspect which is
It was the Democrats who controlled the Houses when:
a) * *the system was deregulated

the 106th congress was GOP controlled. you're such a whore and a liar

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
...
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:48 am, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 9:39 am, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message
#
# says the guy who thinks obama has moved the US capital to havana.
#
One has to wonder why you imagine to making stupid fantasy accusations
about
the person who disagrees with you, will support you claims in any way
Why is it that you are so stupid as to make far-fetched claims about
other
peoplem, instead of arguing the issue ?
now let's see...we have the right wing which, [crap snipped]
but it's NOT causality when the policies that bush followed
destroyed
our economy and trashed the middle class
You can't show that any of his policies did any of that. *THAT'S*
the
lack of causality, dumb ****.
really? cutting capital gains and causing the wall street
Cutting capital gains tax caused no debacle
#
# sure did. it increased the deficit.
#
NO it did NOT !
cutting taxes with no revenue increase and no decrease in spending
NECESSARILY causes an increase in the deficit.
Not a debacle per se.

# the US isn't rich. we're a debtor nation
Being in debt doesn't mean one isn't rich.
ROFLMAO!!! so to you the richest guy in the world is one who's
bankrupt??!!!
Being in debt does not mean bankruptcy.
#
# fine. you go tell me how we're going to pay the bills we racked up.
# guess what the definition of bankruptcy is?
Well let's see, used an equity loan to make some upgrades to my house,
even
though I have the same amount of money available in my investments
So I have debt, but I'm not bankrupt
See how that works....
and wall street sold 62 TRILLION in CDO's
You don't know what that means.

another way of whimpering your way out of an argument.

Another way of kicking your ****ing teeth in. I'd do it in person if I
had the chance.


Nah
What's the point of kicking cockroaches ?

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 24, 9:48 am, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 11:16 pm, Wilson Woods wrote:

wf3h wrote:
No, you're wrong. You stated it as if it had already happened. You
also lied about the reasons for it happening.

It may or may not come to pass. In any event, those workers returning
to their home countries is not necessarily an indication that there's
anything "wrong" with the US economy

i know.

You don't know. You think it *is* because of some defect in our
economy

#
# IOW when the data shows indians and chinese are LEAVING this
# country....

And how many are still coming into this country ?
#
# not even enough to use up all the visas they're entitled to. the
# article points out that H1B visas used to be used up on the very first
# day they were available
#
# not anymore

And ?
Less foreign workers means less competition for US workers
Apparently you prefer that Americans be out of work while foreigners get the
jobs
You have a very skewed sense of what's important
But then considering the rest of the ignorant **** you spout, that's no
surprise

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
m...
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 9:48 am, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 11:16 pm, Wilson Woods wrote:

wf3h wrote:
No, you're wrong. You stated it as if it had already happened. You
also lied about the reasons for it happening.
It may or may not come to pass. In any event, those workers returning
to their home countries is not necessarily an indication that there's
anything "wrong" with the US economy
i know.
You don't know. You think it *is* because of some defect in our
economy
#
# IOW when the data shows indians and chinese are LEAVING this
# country....

And how many are still coming into this country ?

not even enough to use up all the visas they're entitled to.

Irrelevant

Apparently to him, it's very meaningful