RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

You Can’t Change Human Nature

The fundamental difference between genuine conservatives and genuine liberals is this–liberals believe they can make people do what they, the liberals, conceive as the right thing by passing laws and imposing sanctions. See, liberals know what is best for others and do not trust people to choose for themselves to do the right thing. Genuine liberals believe in the power of the collective and see the individual as a mere cog in the wheel of state that must be made to do the right thing. Genuine conservatives, by contrast, believe that the person, not the state, is the highest value and strive to create opportunities for people to choose what to do with their life and property.

Let me give you a current example. In Colombia, traffic is terrible. Rather than build new roads and create incentives for people to use their cars more wisely, the liberal mind in Colombia decided to impose restrictions on who can drive on a particular day. Their solution? Only allow cars with license plates that end in an odd number to drive on odd number days and only allow cars with even number plates on the road on even days. Such is the naivete of the liberal mind.

Guess what average people, liberal and conservative do to circumvent this? They buy an extra car or they buy an extra license plate. As a result, you wind up with more cars on the street.

Raising taxes is another typical example of the liberal naiveté. They believe that if you raise the tax rate, people will pay more and the problem of deficit spending will be magically solved.

So what happens when investors and the wealthy face the certainty of higher taxes?

As lawmakers struggle to agree on a plan to avert the series of tax increases looming next year, many investors are taking preemptive action to get out of harm’s way.

Americans are moving to sell investment homes, off-load stocks, expand charitable donations and establish tax-sheltering gifts before the end of the year. Financial advisers and accountants say people are trying to avoid the higher taxes that will take effect in 2013 if Washington does not avert the “fiscal cliff.”

For the nation’s top earners, who as a group make a large share of their incomes through investment returns, those moves could have a major impact on their tax bills.

“We are seeing a lot of questions about what assets to sell,” said Debbie Haines, a partner at CST Group, a Reston accounting firm. “A lot of people are wanting to liquidate stocks that have a gain. A lot of people are harvesting their capital gains. There is also some concern that itemized deductions will be cut, and some people who are charitably inclined are thinking about making bigger donations this year.“

Also, with the tax laws covering gifts set to tighten significantly, several Washington area estate lawyers say they are facing a rush of people interested in establishing trusts that under current law allow a couple to protect more than $10 million in assets from the tax man. Impending changes in the law could reduce the gift exclusion to $1 million for an individual or $2 million for a couple.

Hell, even the liberal Washington Post acted like a conservative one per center. AP reported last Friday:

The Washington Post Co. will pay its 2013 dividends before the end of this year to try to spare investors from anticipated tax increases.

The media and education company said Friday that its dividend of $9.80 per share is payable Dec. 27 to shareholders of record as of Dec. 17. The payout is instead of regular quarterly dividends next year.

This means that the funds for investments will shrink in the coming year, not expand. That means a contraction of economic activity, not an expansion.

Those with money who can afford it will flee from high tax states and set up residency in lower tax states. There will be a tightening of belts across the land. Despite Obama’s silly, stupid promise that his Obamacare would reduce costs, the opposite is happening already. A tax on medical devices already is leading that part of the medical industry to lay off workers. It also means the price of those devices will go up. That means we will all pay more. This is basic economics–rising prices generally are accompanied by reduced demand.

Of course, there are some goods and services–e.g., food and fuel–that people must have. The price on those items is somewhat “inelastic.” That term simply means that people will continue to buy the items despite the rise in prices. However, the type of food purchased will shift. Folks accustomed to eating steak and pork on a regular basis will scale back and go for cheaper items.

One other thing happens in the face of higher taxes–people turn to the black market and the grey market. Folks will increasingly deal in cash transactions. Activity previously captured with credit cards will shrink. This means the government will actually wind up with less money and those groups most adept and meeting demand in the black market (i.e., the criminals) will prosper.

If Obama succeeds in raising the rates on the so-called 2%, he will have a pyrrhic victory. Any addition increase in revenue will be short-lived. The net effect will be to knee cap the already faltering economy. Unfortunately, most Americans must learn the hard way. Some tough lessons are coming. You can count on that.

  • Susan Bernard

    I hardly think there are clear definitions of “liberal” and “conservatives”. It is not as black and white as you suggest. For example, how do you explain that “conservatives” want to government to tell us who we can marry and whether we can have an abortion or not?

    As far as taxes go, every single Republican President except for George W Bush raised taxes multiple times.

    One thing we do know is that “conservatives” hate government, but many “conservatives” or Red Staters are completely dependent on government. For example the Republican party wins the retirement vote, yet most retired people are completely dependent on government programs like medicare and social security.

    By the way there is no proof that raising taxes on the 2% will have a negative impact on the economy. Those higher tax rates actually helped the economy during the Clinton era.

    Also, if you check the stats healthcare inflation has actually been falling since Obamacare became law. The rate of increases in healthcare costs has been falling in the last two years. Obamacare goes further than any previous legislation at attempting to tackle healthcare inflation. By the way the CBO continues to predict that Obamacare will help to lower the deficit.

  • Herb Branch

    In many ways Obama is completely ignorant of real economics. But Rush Limbaugh is correct in his current assessment of the president: Obama does believe all the communist and socialist rhetoric he has been taught since he was a child. He believes he is correcting the fundamental errors and sins of the Founders of America. He believes that they were steeped in unforgivable error. He believes that it is his mission and destiny to correct all that and to remake the USA into the image that Marx had in mind for US and the world. He fully intends to make an end of the America we grew up with and loved. Welcome to “Obama’s New Amerika.” That is why the Euro-socialist love him. They see where he is taking us (to make an end of us for Geo. Soros)!

    • Alan Davis

      That’s not even the half of it! Obama is an alien from outer space and he believes in the aliens. He is communicating with them via the Eiffel Tower – yup, the Euro connection yet again. Weekly World News covers this and is the world’s most reliable news source.

      • Hokma

        Do you have even a ounce of intelligence? Or is it just a bunch gelatinous garbage swimming around between your ears.

  • Hokma

    OT (way the hell OT)

    I got my TV on and just about every other channel is this 12-12-12 Concert for Sandy Relief.

    Maybe its just me, but I find this to be comedic.

    You have all these artists performing a concert to raise money for some of the highest income zip codes in the country. Where this storm hit is not exactly Bangledesh or even New Orleans.

    Let’s face it, I had some loss but its getting fixed and people I know who actually lost homes are with friends and relatives and their homes are getting rebuilt. In many cases local businesses have donated themselves to fix homes for those who are older.

    But to have this kind of a fundraising concert with Springstein, Bon Jovi, The Who, Clapton, McCartney, the Stones. Billy Joel, etc is silly.

    I think a better use of these celebrities and the celebrities on the phones taking donations would be to pay down our national debt.

    • getfitnow

      They can’t help themselves. It makes them feel virtuous–like voting for an unqualified black man for POTUS.

      • Hokma

        One more thing about that concert.

        There should be a “red line” in music when it comes to aging rockers.

        The Rolling Stones looked like four escapees from the Sunnydale Nursing Home wearing wigs.

  • DianaLC

    Just recently, my Obot relative started a conversation about all those horrible right wingers who would make young girls have babies they don’t want. I believe he thought that on that issue I would agree with him. In any case, when I started to give my arguments about why the “war on women” meme was idiotic, he simply said, “Whoa! I don’t like the way this is going, so let’s change the subject.” I had to, as it was his house. But I will be ready for him next time about close-minded lefties with holier than thou attitudes that are misguided.

    • http://twitter.com/vitadMD vitadMD

      You may want to try Mark Levin’s approach: ask successive questions like “How would they or how do they do that?… What do you think about that?… Why do you think they do that? or How does that work?… Sometimes it seems as though people are conditioned to think a certain way, to repeat certain talking points, without thinking through for themselves or researching issues in a more granular manner. The point is not to respond or inform or share what you’ve learned, but allow that person to think out loud…

      • Alan Davis

        I think that sounds like a good idea. Engaging someone (especially a loved one) with respect can do wonders. Also, being willing to actually listen and maybe changing one’s mind just a little will do wonders for all involved.

        Diana, if your young relative wants to find some common ground with you then it might be rather christian of you to send out love instead of getting mean and combative and driving off any further discussion with your relative. The whole notion of major brand party affiliation being a reason to love or hate is silly. I have relatives who are political – from both major brands – and some who are apolitical. They are all good people and I can share love with them even tho we might not agree on all issues. And it seems to me that super devotee partisans within BOTH major brand parties have that exact same holier than thou attitude.

  • HARP2

    Speaking of human nature.

    The next time a lib tosses out the race card, show them this.

    Union Thugs Demolish Clint Tarver’s Iconic
    Lansing,Michigan Hot Dog Cart [Photo-Donation Link] Update: Thugs Yelled
    “N*gger Uncle Tom”

    http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/2012/12/12/union-thugs-demolish-clint-tarvers-iconic-lansingmichigan-hot-dog-cart-photo-donation-link/

    • Retired_from_SPOnaj

      When asked about this, Eric Holder said, “Hey, he isn’t one of ‘my people’.” And speaking of honesty, the union thugs didn’t call him a “N*gger Uncle Tom.” The called him a “Nigger Uncle Tom.” It’s time that people who use the word “nigger” start owning it.

      • KenoshaMarge

        Exactly. PC be damned. If someone uses the damn word, say the damn word!

        But we all know that this really didn’t happen because the MSM will not, can not report it without showing the union thugs for who and what they are.

        Because they are more interested in indoctrination than information they continue their corrupt lack of reporting on things that don’t fit their agenda.

    • getfitnow

      I saw a note much earlier in the day that fundraising for this gentleman was around 14k. This man is an icon in this area. Has been doing this since 1990. Everybody knows him and likes him–well, except these thugs.

      Where’s Jesse and Al?
      Beer Summit anybody?

  • elizabethrc

    Your opening analogy is firghtening because it’s so on target.
    How long will we have to be in this inevitable economic downturn before his followers realize what they have in Obama? Will they remain loyal to him even as their pocketbooks prove that he knows nothing of economics, much less shows competence in running a country?
    It will be cold comfort for us that they may at long last come to their senses, (in my heart of hearts I doubt it) because the goose will already have been cooked. The only ones who will benefit from Obama’s actions will be the politicians and DC insiders or those who have enough wealth to be able to leave the US for a more favorable tax climate.
    My mother was a wonder at tightening her belt as her financial circumstances shrunk. Today she would be hard pressed to weather what’s coming.

    • KenoshaMarge

      How long will we have to be in this inevitable economic downturn before his followers realize what they have in Obama?

      When you have people that are willfully blind and woefully ignorant you will have to wait, as they say, until hell freezes over. A few, here and there may actually pull their heads out of their asses and look at reality. Most will not. They cannot because that would require facing the reality that they were wrong.

  • Hokma

    What amazes me is the fundamental ignorance of people who have advanced degrees and govern us.

    In retail, the more you lower the price of an item the more you sell and the more revenue you get. Raise the price and you will sell less and have less revenue.

    The same holds true for taxes. California raised their taxes and much to their chagrin that actually resulted in less revenue.

    IN New York City, Giuliani came to office and lowered taxes which resulted in a lot of business coming to NYC, more jobs, and much greater revenue.

    The tax increases the DiC (Demagogue in Chief) is seeking willl have zero effect on the debt.

  • getfitnow

    Interesting article as far as the FED goes, imo. However, The Community Reinvestment Act was passed during the CARTER administration. In April 2001 the Bush administration proposed reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There’s a clip of McCain making a speech about this senate floor. There were hearings and I recall the regulator, who testified, being called, in so many words, racist, by Maxine Waters and others, for wanted to rein in this “fiscal cliff.”.

    HUD, under Clinton pushed lenders to make loans to people who couldn’t possibly repay them, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy them.That’s one big reason I’d never vote for Cuomo for POTUS.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/12/12/our_governmentcreated_financial_crisis/page/2

    • Hokma

      This is the truth about how we got the mortgage crisis, but they are inconvenient facts for Obama and his band of socialist media sycophants.

      • win43

        That’s false. There’s zero statistical difference in foreclosure rates in loans made by institutions regulated by the CRA and those not regulated by the CRA. Approximately half of all subprime loans in the aughts were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to the CRA at all. Etc., etc. etc.

        If you can’t point to any statistical correlation between CRA regulation and foreclosures — and if you can then please do, but I’m sure you’ll just call me names because you can’t, because none exists — then your theory is crap.

        • Hokma

          “institutions regulated by the CRA”

          The CRA didn’t regulate any institutions. The courts did. Just ask Obama. He was one of the lawyers who used the CRA to get a bunch of mortgages for credit unworthy people through lawsuits.

          Your argument is based on wishful thinking and not fact.

          The CRA was the basis for lawsuits brought by social activist groups and attorneys to stop red line mortgage practices but went too far.

          Banks were forced by courts to give mortgages that over time became more and more risky. Banks had to find tools to limit their financial risk.

          Most of these loans went through Fannie and Freddie – a subsidiary of the DNC – and most of them were by actions taken by Clinton.

          • win43

            I mean, that’s just… you have no idea how nonsensical all of that is. Every word of it.

            Your theory is that the ENTIRE HOUSING CRISIS was caused by “social activist groups and lawyers” who “used the CRA to get a bunch of mortgages for credit unworthy people through lawsuits”?

            First, there’s no individual enforcement mechanism for the CRA. A “credit unworthy” individual cannot use any part of the CRA to force a bank to give him or her a loan. Okay? So nobody — literally nobody — ever got themselves a mortgage by using the CRA to sue a bank.

            Now, I’ll be charitable: maybe you’re clumsily saying that complying with CRA requirements caused banks to change their credit requirements so drastically that it brought about the housing crisis. But where’s your data? There are lenders that are subject to CRA compliance requirements, and lenders that aren’t. If you’re right, lenders subject to the CRA should have a higher default rate in their loans. Right?

            But they don’t. So… what’s your point, again?

            • Hokma

              “Your theory is that the ENTIRE HOUSING CRISIS was caused by “social activist groups and lawyers” who “used the CRA to get a bunch of mortgages for credit unworthy people through lawsuits”?”

              It’s not a theory it’s a fact unless like most liberals you have to suspend reality in order to concoct your false narratives.

              “A “credit unworthy” individual cannot use any part of the CRA to force a bank to give him or her a loan.”

              So all of those lawsuits that used the CRA as their foundation never really happened? Tell that to the banks.

              CRA was set up to disband redline practices by banks and real estate companies. That’s it. Whatever regulations came out of it were a direct result of case law.

              And the only thing that forced banks to change their lending practices and give mortgages to credit unworthy people were courts.

              And my point was “getfitnow” was right. Democrats and their policies were the cornerstone of the mortgage crisis.

              • win43

                Cite a lawsuit in which the CRA was used as the basis for a private right of action.

                Cite ONE. Since “all those lawsuits” allegedly happened, I’m sure you can cite one.

                And you have a childish understanding of how regulations are promulgated. AGENCIES, not courts, write regulations. Courts then may interpret those regulations, but it’s not the same thing. Seriously, I don’t know where you’re getting your information on this, but you should stop trusting that particular source.

                • Hokma

                  I went through this more than once on this blog – citing chapter and verse of the entire history of this issue and I am not inclined to do it again and once again teach someone who does not have the inclination or intellectual curiosity to do their own research.

                  Do this yourself.

                  • win43

                    LOL, we’ve been here before: I say “prove your case,” you say “I can’t be bothered.” Sure, you’ll argue all day, but you just don’t have the time to look up any proof for anything, ever. When are you going to figure out how bad that makes you look?

                    How about this: Harambee Uhuru School, Inc. v. Kemp, 1992 WL 274545 (S.D. Ohio). The Harambee court held that there is no private right of action to bring suit under the CRA (i.e., individuals cannot sue banks for CRA violations). No court has ever held otherwise.

                    There you go. I’ve cited authority, you haven’t. If you want to keep having this conversation, start citing things other than your own uninformed opinion.

                    You said “all those lawsuits” are out there… surely it can’t be that much trouble to cite one, right? Just give me the name of the case and I’ll look it up myself. It won’t take any more time than this endless back-and-forth where you cite nothing — in fact, it’ll take much LESS time. So what’s the name of the case?

                    • Hokma

                      I got a better idea.

                      Why don’t you take the time and lay out your theory of how the mortgage problem happened and then let me rip it to shreds. Because I have not read a single coherent thought from you ever.

                      Otherwise take you Ajax Technical School bullshit and continue to willfully live in your self indulgent ignorance.

                      If you are going to criticize someone else you better have facts jerk

                    • win43

                      Hahaha, now you want to change the subject…

                      No. You’re not getting off that easy.

                      Remember, we haven’t moved past this point: your theory is that the housing crisis was caused by banks being forced, via lawsuits based on the CRA, to extend too many loans to too many “credit unworthy” people.

                      I say that is a myth, and I say that for two reasons:

                      First, no lawsuit has ever forced a bank to make a loan to any particular individual on the basis of the CRA, because the CRA does not authorize lawsuits by individuals to enforce its terms. To the extent your theory requires this NOT to be the case, your theory is necessarily, um, bullshit.

                      Second, it is an empirical fact that lending institutions subject to CRA rules have not seen higher foreclosure rates on their loans than institutions not subject to the CRA. But we haven’t even gotten this far, because you aren’t able to admit that you are making shit up on the first point.

                    • Hokma

                      “no lawsuit has ever forced a bank to make a loan to any particular individual on the basis of the CRA, because the CRA does not authorize lawsuits by individuals to enforce its terms.”

                      You clearly do not understand CRA or its history. I am going to do this one more time.

                      The CRA was a law that sought to get banks to get rid of redlining.

                      The law was drawn up with the belief that banks have an obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered. It was not much different than the licensing of local broadcast media that also needed to be responsive to the local market where they were chartered.

                      The CRA provided that regulators of publicly chartered banks:

                      (1) use their authority to encourage banks to meet the credit needs of their local communities in a safe and sound manner,

                      (2) assess the bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, and

                      (3) take the bank’s record into account when evaluating applications for a deposit facility by the bank.

                      The success or failure of the CRA was always intended to rest in the hands of community groups. The CRA enhanced the bargaining position of community groups because the bargaining position of community groups was greatest when a bank’s application for expansion was up for review.

                      For about the first 20 years the law did not have as significant an impact on housing for minorities as expected. The commitments totaled about $200 billion over those 20 years.

                      Then came Bubba. Based on his efforts the CRA resulted in $4.2 trillion of commitments for the next 10 years. Why?

                      The Clinton administration favored expanding the use of the CRA, from the beginning of his first term. He felt that a governmental response to economic problems in inner cities was more effective than a market solution. Clinton went right to work aggressively changing the regulations of CRA.

                      Prior to Bush, Clinton expanded the regulatory requirements of banks by mandating minimum levels of mortgages to certain groups of people. He also greatly expanded the use of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He brought in the securitization of mortgages into bonds (sell to investment bankers) which led to riskier lending since mortgage lenders no longer had to hold onto the loans and that resulted in subprime lending

                      Essentially, Clinton put CRA on steroids in his first few years.

                      This led to an avalanche of civil lawsuits against lending institutions based on mortgage seekers who were minorities and did not qualify under standard mortgages practices.

                      So-called violation of the CRA opened the door for lawyers to use three sibling statutes:

                      – the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)

                      – Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)

                      – and the Fair Housing Act (FHA)

                      all aimed towards eliminating “discrimination” in the lending process.

                      The close relationship arises from the near automatic determination that if ECOA or FHA is violated, the institution is not serving its “community.” The CRA was enacted as a follow-up to the HMDA, in part in response to instances in which a poor white applicant had a significantly better chance of getting a mortgage loan than a wealthy black applicant. These four statutes were designed to assure credit availability for people of all income levels and demographic groups.

                      As far as a lawsuit, check out Buycks Roberson v. Citibank. This was filed in 1994 and a direct result of the activism of Bubba’s administration.

                      It alleged that Citibank had engaged in redlining in the Chicago inner city community in violation of the ECOA, the FHA, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. (which is a catch all). This was made possible because of the enactment and expansion of the CRA under Bubba.

                      The parties did settle the case in ‘98 ensuring that Citibank would follow its own loan policies in a race neutral way.

                      One of the plaintiff lawyers in this class action was Barack Obama although I doubt he was the lead attorney. Likely he just said, “Present.”

                      Also, when Obama came to office and we already had the mortgage meltdown, he wanted to take enforcement of the CRA away from the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and other financial regulators who at least try to weigh bank safety and soundness, and turn it over to a newly created Consumer Financial Protection Agency and Fauxkahontas (Elizabeth Warren). This way the agency’s core concern would not be financial safety and soundness but, “promoting access to financial services” or forcing banks to lend to those who would not ordinarily qualify.

                      “it is an empirical fact that lending institutions subject to CRA rules have not seen higher foreclosure rates on their loans than institutions not subject to the CRA.”

                      See above as to how this actually worked to understand that this is not true,

                    • win43

                      Yes, that was certainly a very long response (and largely copied and pasted from cato.org: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv17n4/vmck4-94.pdf… way to do your own work, you plagiarist you).

                      Pretty meaningless, though, if you even understand the work you’re stealing from Cato. Most importantly, you’ve utterly ignored my second point above — beyond the unsupported, entirely conclusory statement “See above as to how this actually worked to understand that this is not true” — which is that CRA-regulated lenders don’t have higher foreclosure rates than their unregulated peers. Which they really don’t: http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2007/wp0724.pdf

                      Moreover, you know what percentage of subprime loans were made by CRA-regulated banks in CRA-qualifying neighborhoods? Six. Six fucking percent: http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/banking_12625.htm

                      So, you’re saying that those 6% of all subprime loans — even though they had on average lower interest rates than other subprime loans, see here: http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf — were the REAL cause of the foreclosure crisis. Right.

                      Again, you’re living in a world of pure myth. Why don’t you go try to pass some more research off as your own. This time be careful not to run into anybody with a brain.

                    • Hokma

                      Thanks for the link. It would have made it easier than copying it from reports I have. Actually I am a member of Cato, as well as
                      Heritage and Brookings so I have gotten info on a regular basis and use it for one reason or another. On this subject I have also read 2 books and have a friend who sued Countrywide for fraud which is how I got interested in this back in 2007.

                      The Cleveland study simply shows that foreclosures were predominantly from nontraditional mortgage lenders who fell outside standard bank regulation. Well how did those institutions get to be mortgage lenders? It was Clinton’s decision to aggressively expand CRA and the actions his administration took to loosen up regulations.

                      The other two studies are irrelevant studies that do exactly what I said – suspend reality. The 2008 Fed Reserve study was an effort to cover their ass. And it only had to do with 2006 which has nothing to do with how we got there. The same with that law firm’s study which also had only to do with 2006 originated loans.

                      So according to you nothing happened during the Clinton administration on this issue. According to left wing demagogues this idea of subprime lending and bad loans suddenly appeared out of thin air in 2006 – like magic.

                      The person who is ignoring facts is you.

                      Had the CRA been left alone by Clinton, it likely would never have resulted in what transpired.

                      Take the two most heinous subprime lenders. Ameriquest was an S&L until 1994 when they converted to primarily a mortgage lending company that quickly got known as a predatory lender and was eventually forced to offer low cost mortgages after a lawsuit by ACORN who were suing everyone. Then there was Countrywide Mortgage which started as IndyBank by Mozilo in the mid ‘90s and was the poster child for subprime mortgages.

                      As I mentioned had Clinton not sought to liberalize and reinvent the CRA these types of companies would not have been possible.

                      What is laughable is that if one goes to the left wing Wikipedia and to “subprime mortgage crisis” they complete skip over the entire Clinton Administration period very deftly. When they talk about the riskier securitization they conveniently leave out when and how that happened. It is just another effort by left wingers to delude people in believing a false narrative.

                      Studies that conveniently focus only on after-the-facts of the Clinton CRA policies ignore how all the speculation that inevitably resulted from the reckless policies that began under Clinton. A more productive use of time would be to review all of the laws and regulations that came out of the Clinton administration in their first term. In addition to those reckless policies were also the monetary policies of Greenspan that led to the credit and mortgage problem.

                      Speaking of life before Bush, all of Obama’s plaintiffs did get mortgages. Any idea how many defaulted? I did not see any of those in your links’ studies. And that was Citibank.

                    • win43

                      LOL, no, you are not a member of Cato. Or any other think tank. Maybe you’re on a listserv or something, though. But probably the funniest, most transparently false thing you’ve ever said here — and there has been a lot of it — is that you’re a member of not just one conservative think tank, but three! All three at once.

                      You’re just too much, man. Enjoy your day, it’s been fun.

                    • Hokma

                      Contented ignorance.

                      You really are a brainless maggot.

                      So the grand I spend every year goes for what moron?

                      https://www.cato.org/support/levelsbenes.html#patron

                      When you own a company and have sold one you can afford this jackass.

                      Just get lost and stop wasting my time.

                    • win43

                      Ah, so you’re a SPONSOR, not a “member.” And of course, sponsoring gives you the right to copy and paste work others have done, and pass it off as your own. That’s how it works? Must be nice, paying others to think for you.

                    • Hokma

                      Get lost roach.

                    • win43

                      Oh good one! Pretty soon you’ll be threatening to fight me again!

                      Time was I thought Ferd Berfle was the most fun plaything on the internet (I miss him). You’ve changed my mind, Hokma, and for that I thank you.

                    • Hokma

                      Exactly how many names do you go under scottymac? Back to your basement maggot.

                    • Susan Bernard

                      You can always tell when this guy has no idea what he is talking about or has completely lost the argument. He resorts to the personal attack. Larry Johnson actually also does the same thing.

                    • win43

                      And okay, on substance:

                      “Well how did those institutions get to be mortgage lenders? It was Clinton’s decision to aggressively expand CRA and the actions his administration took to loosen up regulations.”

                      Explain what in the living hell you mean by that. It makes zero sense, at all. How does expanding enforcement of the CRA lead to the formation of non-traditional mortgage lenders who are making a bunch of loans that aren’t even CRA-eligible?

                      Wow, they’ll really let anybody into every think tank in the Western world these days, huh?

                    • Hokma

                      Get lost after learning how 1+1=2

                    • Susan Bernard

                      Also, about 1/3 of forclosures involved refinanced mortagages, which do not qualify under the CRA.

                    • Susan Bernard

                      In fact, institutions subject to the CRA had lower foreclosure rates because the lending requirements under the CRA were more strict. It is nonsensical that a program created in the 1970s was responsible for the largest global financial crash and housing collapse ever in 2008.

    • HARP2

      Thunder Dome comes to mind.

    • mgm

      Huh? Cuomo isn’t Clinton. If you live in NY State you should know that. His approval ratings hover around 70% and New Yorkers are hard to please. He’s already done much to turn New York around. Businesses are starting up here in western NY for the first time in years. The damage previously done is mostly attributable to–sorry–Republican governors like Rockefeller and Pataki.

      • getfitnow

        I didn’t say he’s Clinton. He was in charge of HUD and was instrumental in pushing homes for everybody. BTW, I don’t care about what party he belongs to. The CRA did much damage to this country. There were a lot of hands involved, including his. On a national level, that matters to me. I feel the same way about Obamacare. Anyone that supported that debacle will not get my vote.

    • http://www.facebook.com/melanie.sotelo.716 Melanie Sotelo

      It was george bushes ownership society philosophy believing home owners will vote more conservative, that he pushed through the “American Dream Downpayment Act” signed into law 2003 and the “zero-down-payment-plan” 2004, along with “bear stearns exemption” (2004 net capital rule requirements raised ~4x to 40-1 ratios for the investment banks) set the ground work for the housing bubble. First time home buyers were rising at faster rate over 2 years begining in 2007 then they did in pervious 40 years.
      http://lansner.freedomblogging.com/files/2009/08/affordability-graph-8-14-09.jpg

      Home Ownership and President Bush
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

      President Bush Discusses Homeowners­­hip Financing
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugeqexHzVNQ

      • getfitnow

        My point is that this mess started long before Bush 2 was on the scene. If you can’t admit that this debacle spans across more than a couple of administrations, you’re missing the point.

  • KenoshaMarge

    If you start with the basic premise that liberals are “right” and anyone who opposes them is not only wrong but evil you get the liberal world of today. Having been a Democrat for many years it is still difficult for me to see what the Dems have become.

    I may not always agree with all things conservative, hell I don’t always agree with anyone about anything, but I don’t find them evil.

    The liberal mindset and drone culture is something I do find evil. Because I believe in personal responsibility and the power of the individual to do great things.

    There are,of course, times when we must come together as a people. But not as a mindless collective. Never that!

  • no_longer_a_democrat

    Great article. I suppose yes I was one of those idiot liberals who did believe that you can forever raise money by spreading the wealth by taxing the “evil” rich, but there are not enough rich people, eventually, anyone who pays taxes will be considered rich, most of the middle class will be affected.

    In CA, they passed Prop 30, all the idiots there so pleased with themselves, within 1 quarter, guess what happened? 25%+ in lost revenues as people, the productive job creating ones fled the state.

    Taxes are just a transfer of wealth, the govt uses force to tax, now some taxes are needed to help with roads etc. but Soetero and the dims now just want to tax the productive job creators to “spread the wealth”

    the tax rate hike Soetero and the dims want, guess how much it will bring in every year? 50-60 billion, that’s it! I will guarantee, they will lose 50 times more in revenues coming in and people just completely pull in and use a “let it burn” strategy as explained by a post by Ace of Spades, why would they create more wealth just so the soetero and dims are spread it around with no end in sight!

    • getfitnow

      I read yesterday that CA (unfortunately I live in the asylum) spends most of its “income” on public sector salaries, pensions and health care benefits. It was a huge amount way over half. If I can find the article, I’ll post the amount.

  • buzzlatte3

    Yep. What did I read somewhere today? Californians are moving in droves to Texas. Those nasty ol’ red states that still honor business and self-determination will be seeing some reward. And as a wealthy friend said, “Cash is King!”

  • http://lesstalkmoreactivism.blogspot.com/ Canaan

    Absolutely. Then the second shoe drops — after a fiscal catastrophe, the state moves to cut off these ‘unintended consequences, which will take totalitarian power. Or maybe the consequences aren’t unintended, in the genocidal wet dreams of Kos, Van Jones, et al.

    How will the country react when Obama drops the second shoe?

    • getfitnow

      Recall Wiscosin and fast forward to Michigan. Like that on Steroids.

  • nickoury

    Are you saying it’s not going to be all sunshine and roses?

    Stupid, spiteful, determined arrogance, purposely driving the least financially capable straight into the ground.
    Yeah, that’s thinking FORWARD.

    Now THAT’S funny, jamie.

  • HARP2

    Won`t the underground economy be great ?

    Take the electrician that gets new braces for his kid from a dentist that gets his house rewired.

    All on the up and up and the treasury loses.

    • elizabethrc

      Years ago an artist I knew lived in part by the barter system. He traded some of his art for dental work, etc. Today he is one of the leading artists in the environmental art movement. I think those recipients of his barters will stand them in good stead as his prices increase.
      Maybe the barter system isn’t such a bad thing!