I don’t always have time to respond to all the posts I want to, life tends to get in the way. I welcome your rebuttals even if I don’t get a chance to respond.
Ok, I’ll accept that the reason you don’t respond when I counter your points is that your schedule is just too hectic.
Perhaps I didn’t elaborate on Repub complicity b/c it’s pretty obvious. If you look at the first part of the email though, I blamed Bush for a failure in oversight. See my response to Chris Crawford for a more full statement.
I read you response and you believe an off-handed comment and then an indictment of the dem policy is fair handed. I disagree.
I never attacked poor people in my post so there’s no need to go bold in your response. You assume too much from, what I wrote. That seems to be a consistent problem for you and may be part of the reason you think my logic is flawed. If you read my original post more carefully you will see I was attacking the policy. In the long run getting someone a mortgage they can’t afford doesn’t help them. In this case it hurt a lot of people who weren’t sub-prime too because there were so many people buying houses, prices became artificially inflated causing everyone to overpay for real estate.
Your “affordable housing” claim states that inherently poor people can’t afford homes. That is bogus, there are lots of poor people who were able to get houses and did not default on their mortgages. This is because not only were they properly vetted, but they were not forced into ARMs and ridiculous fees, penalties and interest rates that ENCOURAGED foreclosures in so many instances. You, as many conservatives using this argument, assume that being against the policy of “affordable housing” is not against the poor is way off base. “Affordable housing” is a good policy meant to encourage upward movement in our mostly stagnant class system. Predatory lending and bad mortgage lenders led to the overinflated market and foreclosures, NOT poor people defaulting on loans and NOT “affordable housing” policies by the dems. I’ve read your posts very carefully. It is always a poor defense to claim that I “assume” this or that about your position. If you were effectively communicating, then there would be no misunderstanding. If you feel I misunderstand you, then simply try to restate your opinion and focus on the areas that you “felt” were misunderstood. However, this paragraph only further represents that I did not misunderstand. If you are against “affordable housing” policies then you ARE against the poor. The bold was to represent quotes and stats, don’t be offended by typeface.
The irony here is that in an effort to make housing more affordable, the Dems’ policy made it harder for the poor to get a mortgage and in the process wrecked the real estate market. Bush and the Repubs failed to curb Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s spending and totally failed to regulate instruments like MBS.
Here you are avoiding republican’s REAL responsibility in the crisis, which I outlined. As I stated before, if Glass-Steagall were still in effect then the mortgage crisis would NOT have been global, or as bad, and would have most negatively affected the predatory lenders and not ALL OF US. The Dems didn’t make policy that resulted in poor people having a harder time with mortgages. You should look more closely at the mortgage protections in the Stimulus. You should also realize, that the repubs blocking “affordable housing” policies, which you support, makes it more difficult for poor people to get mortgages. Failing to “curb Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” would not have resulted in any better economic situations now. Of all the loans that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae service 98.3% were current or less than 60 days delinquent and only 0.12% had foreclosure initiated. This is from last year. If you can find more current statistics, by all means try and refute this. I don’t think you’ll prove your point, though.
I found these two quotes in your response interesting. First, I said Dodd was bought off as were “a lot of other pols from both sides of the aisle.” In case it wasn’t clear, “both sides of the aisle” means Repubs and Dems. You said “everyone in Congress is bought and paid for.” You called my post partisan rhetoric and yet it seems we agree.
But you felt the need to call out Dodd. I’d feel better if you’d drop the partisan jabs and stick with something everyone can agree with, i.e. everyone in Congress is bought and paid for.
Second, you claimed the Dems are 1000% better than the Repubs and yet you also state everyone in Congress “is bought and paid for by one special interest or another” That doesn’t sound 1000% better to me, in fact it sounds about the same.
The same? Not even close. We don’t torture, NOW. We are investing in the middle class instead of sticking them with the bill for the tax cuts for the rich. We are ending our involvement with that sham war in Iraq and reinvesting in ending Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan (although it was made a bunch harder thanks to W). Obama signed in the Lilly Ledbetter legislation and extended health benefits for children. Obama and the Dems are LEAPS AND BOUNDS better than Bush and the repubs. 1000%!!
You cite Big Pharma as one of the “wealthiest, most corrupt” special interests. How does that affect your opinion of Obama when he makes a secret back room deal with that special interest?
I already addressed this. As I said, big Pharma should pay, but it is better to have them as an ally due to the ridiculous effort by the repubs.
Does it bother you that there is no tort reform in any plan submitted so far? The reason for that is the trial lawyers are one of the Dems’ biggest donors on both the state and fed level. Is it a problem that the Dems and Obama are in bed with trial lawyers and Big Pharma as opposed to the insurance lobby? What’s the difference,? Aren’t all of them are supporting a policy that will make them money?
Does it bother you that Repubs had the majority for 6 years and never did anything with torte reform or insurance or really anything of substance?
I know there are dems that are against torte reform. It would be awesome if they would get this monkey off of their back. More than the repubs have ever done. Obama referred specifically to doing this, but you need to be careful with the wording in the legislation. If a doctor, hospital, drug company ruins a person’s life and livelihood, they have to be able to sue. And to answer your last question, everybody is trying to get money, that is the BIG problem with capitalism. That is another topic, though.
As for Obama, he did cut a deal with Big Pharma on his healthcare plan. In exchange for very favorable terms, Big Pharma is running a $150 million ad campaign for the plan. Bush struck a similar deal with Big Pharma back in 2002 for medicare drugs for patients 65 and older. There is a similarity there whether you like it or not.
What is funny is that, not only have I already addressed this, Obama touts this as a big difference between W and his administration. W did a favor for big Pharma and asked nothing in return. Politics as usual. Obama is giving them a deal in order to get their support. It is sticking with the devil you know. It isn’t perfect, as I mentioned, but at least it is progress. I’m not so stupid or naive to believe that Obama can fix everything. It isn’t going to be pretty for a long while.
Still 1000% better than W!!!