Payback for the large numbers who believed that Obama is the Anti-Christ.
Is it possible to have more than one?
I’m not the one that started the subdiscussion pinning the economic bust on one politician. My point was if you do, it was more Frank than Bush. The real people to blame are the idiots that financed more house than they could afford but heaven forbid we blame people for being stupid. Must be other people’s fault.
Ummm … Barney Frank refused to implement the suggestions saying having stricter requirements was discriminatory. So it didn’t work because Frank blocked it.
Since we are in the business here of dispelling ignorance, not spreading it:
I think Mr Frank was in error, he did not see how his efforts could be twisted by the greedy and thoughtless. He was fighting against discrimination against people who should, by all rights, be *able *to obtain mortgages. He did not foresee that mortgages could be written to be sold rather than held, to be ground up like sausages, so much meat, so much lesser meat, and so much random innards. Hustling mortgages for people ill equipped to judge them and with little hope of sustaining them.
I happened to be working for Wells Fargo mortgage as a contract temp, when the adjustable rate mortgage grew like kudzu. Suddenly, I was training 2, 3, then 5 people to perform the mundane paperwork, send this to the state, this to the Feds, this to the victims, next!
I grew curious, not being much informed about finance, and asked around, made it a point to chat with some of the old pros. When they knew I was working in ARMs they glowered at me as if I had told them I sold heroin.
After the debacle, the bankers needed someone to blame, so Mr Frank. “He wanted us to bring food to the hungry, so we brought them truckloads of Twinkies, lard and sugar, so its his fault they are so malnourished!”
Hmm. The poor have no agency in their own lives?
More than “none,” but a lot less than those who are wealthy.
Not “no” agency, but considerably less agency than if they weren’t poor. That’s kind of the fundamental downside of poverty, right?
Highlighting a key point from jshore’s first cite above:
In short: No, government lending programs were not the main, or even a major, factor in the housing bubble and subsequent market collapse.
Fundamentally, the housing bubble happened because wealthy investors had shit-tons of money looking for investment opportunities while interest rates were at historic lows, which drove down ROI and stimulated the growth of high-risk alternatives, encouraged by regulatory relaxation:
You guys said he was, quite possibly, the anti-Christ and now you’re making it as if it’s my problem? You even literally said “every word”, when saying you agreed with that post. If you don’t mean what you post, then don’t blame others when called on it.
If you want to know what I think of the rest of his post-- it’s a bunch of nonsense. Not as bad as the ant-Christ comment, but just more of the same whining we’ve been hearing since the election was over. The only thing new in that post was the anti-Christ comment. I don’t like Trump any more than you do, but there is simply no credible argument hat he’s not “legitimate”.
[quote=“John_Mace, post:128, topic:776987”]
You guys said he was, quite possibly, the anti-Christ and now you’re making it as if it’s my problem? You even literally said “every word”, when saying you agreed with that post. If you don’t mean what you post, then don’t blame others when called on it.
If you read at a decent comprehension level, you will see that the meaning is, that if he is not actually the ‘anti-Christ’, he is, in fact, the ‘anti-Obama’.
That, by itself, does not make him illegitimate. The individual actions and statements he made, and continues to make, take care of my case without resorting to hyperbole.
I’m interested in a recent comment he made, I hear, that ‘everyone will have health insurance’ after ACA is repealed and he shapes the Republican efforts to replace it.
I don’t see that happening without a major conversion likened unto Saul of the entire Republican party. Such a step would prove he is not the ‘Anti-Christ’.
I can’t stand the orangutan we’ve somehow inexplicably elected to high office, but I’ve generally accepted his legitimacy up to this point. And even if I don’t, I think it’s pointless to debate whether he is or isn’t legitimate, or whether he deserves to be elected or not. The fact is, he’s there. He was put there by tens of millions of people who thought he’d be better than someone who is arguably more qualified. No amount of wishing him away, no amount of editorials or op-ed letters will change that.
Ultimately, it is up to Trump to delegitimize himself, and fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how we want to view it, I think he’s well on his way to doing just that. He’s got four days left of having the luxury of tweeting without responsibility. In four days, he has to deliver the goods. It’s harder than it looks, even for those who do all of their required homework and don’t go out and get drunk the night before the big test. Given the obvious fact that Trump has spent woefully little time even attempting to prepare, I’d say we’ll soon see a nationwide collective example of buyer’s remorse. The other obvious (and ominous) question is, what kind of damage will be done before the next election, and how long will it take to recover?
Oh, I read just fine. You might reflect on your writing. When the “if…” phrase is at the end of the sentence, it implies a possibility: He is at best the anti-Oabama and at worst, the anti-Christ. You are acting as if you had written: He may not be the anti-Christ, but he is the anti-Obama. But that is not what you wrote. End of semantic debate.
So, let’s focus on the anti-Obama part: How does being “the anti-Obama” make him not legitimate?
Well, I also do think that Trump is delegetimizing himself just fine. He will be a disaster for science and progress on how we deal with greenhouse gas emissions. Even though Trump took lots of undeserved credit of bringing jobs back to America with new car plants; what many missed is that what the automakers are planning to make are more electrical and hybrid cars.
Most of the rubes that are against efforts to deal with emissions have not noticed that most of those news jobs are in reality anathema to their current dogma.
And also that to keep those news jobs the effort of getting more EVs in the American roads will be mostly possible IF Trump does not remove the most recent EPA regulations. I really do not think that when the time comes to really protect those new jobs that Trump will be able to deal with the reptilian brain of many anti-science conservatives that will in the end sabotage all those new jobs to protect the Exxon ones.
One more thing: Besides many conservatives out there denying climate change, one mantra used a lot of times is the one that goes like: “efforts to deal with the issue will get America back to the stone age” or that “jobs will be lost” the item with the automakers is indeed a great example of the cognitive dissonance several conservatives have when dealing with an issue like global warming.
I’m calling it now: Saint Cad will make the same claim at some point in the future.
Sooo pedantic about a comment I clarified, but with a casual, figurative wave of your hand, you declare concerns over legitimacy about Trump’s election as “nonsense,” including such things as Russian meddling and FBI James Comey’s shenanigans. Significant efforts were made by the Russians and Comey that were meant to slow Clinton’s momentum at a critical point in the election, and they worked. Both actions are worrisome enough to our own government to have launched formal investigations.
But it’s good to see where you actually put your priorities and concerns with respect to our election process. Yikes! Someone said, “anti-Christ!”
Maybe his argument is that the Republicans plan on continuing to undermine democracy for their own advantage. So the Democrats need to play by the rules because democracy can’t handle both parties cheating.
We also have dozens of posters who think Trump will be a terrible President.
Let’s not divert too much focus to the extreme and ridiculous claims.
I think his argument is simpler than that, and is as follows:
“You guys are mean. Wah.”
I didn’t. But thanks for taking an interest.
Nope. I said nonsense that isn’t anything new. No need to go over it again. Or, perhaps you can point to something in that post (other than the anti-Christ comment) that has not been gone over many times already on this MB? Exactly how many times do we need to explain that there is no requirement for the president to disentangle himself from business interests? We’ve had entire threads devoted to that subject. If you haven’t seen them, I’ll be happy to point you in the right direction.