PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Ron Paul takes on Fed Defenders at Bloomberg


Taco John
09-25-2009, 04:03 PM
Ron Paul is great! He handles these interviews so well, and no matter how hard they try to out flank him, he constantly gets his point across in a way that anyone can understand.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pCcDGAsW2WI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pCcDGAsW2WI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Taco John
09-25-2009, 04:07 PM
I love how he just spanks them at the end. The guy was gracious and acknowledged it.

BucEyedPea
09-25-2009, 04:34 PM
:clap::clap::clap::clap:

JohnnyV13
09-25-2009, 10:19 PM
The problem Ron Paul and the Austrian theory has, it can't explain 19th century recessions.

If the government causes all recessions since 1913 with monetary policy, how do 19th century recessions take place? If government spending is the root of all evil, and laissez-faire and the gold standard will solve everything, why were recessions both longer and deeper in the 19th century than in the 20th?

Second, Paul ignores some of the problems of gold. First of all, gold supply is totally unrealated to GDP. If economic growth outstrips the amount of new gold removed from mines, you end up with deflation. If the economy contracts, and the amount of gold remain's static, then you have inflation. What happens if we discover a new industrial use for gold? Now your money supply is totally and rapidly out of wack. Commodity prices aren't really stable. Gold has been relatively stable, simply because its pretty much a USELESS item whose only value is its shiny, and people like to look at it.

Any attempt to maintain a relationship between goods produced and gold supply, simply gives you another body regulating the money supply (the fed bank by another name).

The reality is, both Austrian and mainstream economics have internally conflicting premises.

The Austrians believe in the "irrational" consumer, who makes purchases based on all kind of non-beneficial psychological reasons. I actually agree with the Austrians on this point. However, if consumers regularly make irrational economic choices, why is it now impossible for government action to influence more "rational" behavior? Yet, among austrians, ANY government action is always malinvestment (as an article of faith). In short, they switch to a "rational consumer" presumption for purposes of analyzing government intervention in the market.

Conversely, mainstream economics, which believes in the "rational consumer", somehow switches to the psychologically driven irrational consumer theory when it comes to FIXING an economic downturn through government stimulus. Because if consumers are generally so rational that you can use mathmatics to accurately describe real world behavior based on the rational consumer presumption, then how could the government improve upon the choices made by the consumer?

Unlike the Austrians, I do think that the mainstream mathmatical models based on the rational consumer theory have value. Rational behavior does have a sort of darwinian selection working in its favor, thus, even though psychology can drives choices which fly in all kinds of random directions, rational consumer mathmatics are an almost gravatic influance toward which economic behaviors tend to be pulled by market forces.

The problem is, mainstream economics often don't accept the rational consumer model's limits and think they are accurate projections of real world behavior.

Think of it sort of like a pinball machine: at any given time that ball can be moving in all kinds of directions because there are bumpers, flippers, and targets. But, "rational consumer" influence is sort of like the tilt of the table. Over time, the ball tends to flow in the direction gravity pulls it. But, accurately modelling the tilt of the table won't tell you which way the ball is going at any specific point in time.

banyon
09-25-2009, 10:23 PM
Don't ask them about history, it's not very convenient for them to answer.

I think I've asked them to explain pre-Fed crashes probably ten times with no reply.

Taco John
09-25-2009, 11:59 PM
The problem Ron Paul and the Austrian theory has, it can't explain 19th century recessions.

Sure it can. You start your post with a premise that is absolutely wrong. In any market, prudence can be replaced by overhyped expectations, and greed sets in - causing overinvestment. And when a politically motivated central bank tied at the hip of both the congressional and executive branches over extends the credit available during a boom, the result is an exaggeration of the booms, and hence an exaggeration of the bust.

Second, Paul ignores some of the problems of gold. First of all, gold supply is totally unrealated to GDP. If economic growth outstrips the amount of new gold removed from mines, you end up with deflation. If the economy contracts, and the amount of gold remain's static, then you have inflation. What happens if we discover a new industrial use for gold? Now your money supply is totally and rapidly out of wack. Commodity prices aren't really stable. Gold has been relatively stable, simply because its pretty much a USELESS item whose only value is its shiny, and people like to look at it.


Just wrong... Gold is not the only precious metal available. And the point about discovering a new industrial use for gold only underscores how valuable it is. A new industrial use increases the value of the gold. Gold isn't valuable just because it's shiny. It's valuable because there are industrial uses for it, especially in the electronics age, and will only increase in value as technology finds more uses for it because of its anti-oxidative qualities and use as an electrical conductor.

Gold will be around long after the dollar, and certainly long after the Fed.. It's the most successful standard of money in the history of earth.

JohnnyV13
09-26-2009, 12:53 AM
Sure it can. You start your post with a premise that is absolutely wrong. In any market, prudence can be replaced by overhyped expectations, and greed sets in - causing overinvestment. And when a politically motivated central bank tied at the hip of both the congressional and executive branches over extends the credit available during a boom, the result is an exaggeration of the booms, and hence an exaggeration of the bust.




Just wrong... Gold is not the only precious metal available. And the point about discovering a new industrial use for gold only underscores how valuable it is. A new industrial use increases the value of the gold. Gold isn't valuable just because it's shiny. It's valuable because there are industrial uses for it, especially in the electronics age, and will only increase in value as technology finds more uses for it because of its anti-oxidative qualities and use as an electrical conductor.

Gold will be around long after the dollar, and certainly long after the Fed.. It's the most successful standard of money in the history of earth.

The fact that gold would become rapidly more valuable if you find a new industrial use means you'd have a catastrophic shrinkage of the money supply.

Why? Because, suddenly, industry would consume much more gold, leaving less to back currency. You'd have rapid deflation driven simply by discovering a new use for gold. And, you'd have no way to manage the problem if Ron Paul has his way.

Have you ever read about how WW2 prison camps used cigarettes for currency? They had frequent monetary crises because after every Red Cross visit you'd have a massive expansion of the money supply, and rapid dwindling because people consumed the cigarettes.

And, I notice you didn't even address the point that the supply of gold is totally unrelated to a society's productivity.

You really need to study Roman history. The primary reason behind Rome's economic collapse was simple lack of enough physical currency to run the empire. And, Rome's currency problem lasted over 100 years.

Rome bought way too many foreign goods, which meant gold flowed out of Rome. The currency situation got so bad, that Rome couldn't pay its soldiers in coin, instead they starting providing land in return for military service.

Now the problem was, that if you were going to gain value from a land grant, you needed to farm it, which prevented Roman legions from the frequent training needed to perform the complex tactics required by the Marian legion. Hence, Roman military effectiveness collapsed, and by the end of the empire, Rome had to use tactics similar to the Germanic tribes.

One of the advantages of "fiat money" is its only value is in buying something produced by the issuing economy. You will never run into a roman style currency issue, because, ultimately SOMEONE HAS TO SPEND THAT CURRENCY in the issuing country. Gold doesn't have a similary "homing" effect. Once exported, it might never come back and you could have a catastrophic collapse in the money supply no matter how many goods your economy produces.

Taco John
09-26-2009, 12:57 AM
The fact that gold would become rapidly more valuable if you find a new industrial use means you'd have a catastrophic shrinkage of the money supply.

Why? Because, suddenly, industry would consume much more gold, leaving less to back currency. You'd have rapid deflation driven simply by discovering a new use for gold. And, you'd have no way to manage the problem if Ron Paul has his way.

Have you ever read about how WW2 prison camps used cigarettes for currency? They had frequent monetary crises because after every Red Cross visit you'd have a massive expansion of the money supply, and rapid dwindling because people consumed the cigarettes.

And, I notice you didn't even address the point that the supply of gold is totally unrelated to a society's productivity.

You really need to study Roman history. The primary reason behind Rome's economic collapse was simple lack of enough physical currency to run the empire.

Rome bought way too many foreign goods, which meant gold flowed out of Rome. The currency situation got so bad, that Rome couldn't pay its soldiers in coin, instead they starting providing land in return for military service.

Now the problem was, that if you were going to gain value from a land grant, you needed to farm it, which prevented Roman legions from the frequent training needed to perform the complex tactics required by the Marian legion. Hence, Roman military effectiveness collapsed, and by the end of the empire, Rome had to use tactics similar to the Germanic tribes.

One of the advantages of "fiat money" is its only value is in buying something produced by the issuing economy. You will never run into a roman style currency issue, because, ultimately SOMEONE HAS TO SPEND THAT CURRENCY in the issuing country. Gold doesn't have a similary "homing" effect. Once exported, it might never come back and you could have a catastrophic collapse in the money supply no matter how many goods your economy produces.


And likewise, have you read what happens when you inflate the paper supply?

JohnnyV13
09-26-2009, 01:05 AM
Sure it can. You start your post with a premise that is absolutely wrong. In any market, prudence can be replaced by overhyped expectations, and greed sets in - causing overinvestment. And when a politically motivated central bank tied at the hip of both the congressional and executive branches over extends the credit available during a boom, the result is an exaggeration of the booms, and hence an exaggeration of the bust.




Then why were 19th century recessions deeper (more loss as a percentage of GDP) and longer than 20th century recessions? Shouldn't the 20th century recessions have been worse due to the influence of the fed?

I once posted GDP data going back to the frigg'n revolution on CP, and the 19th century recessions were clearly worse. BEP's only response was to claim "GDP isn't a valid statistic". Certainly it has its limits (because it can't tell you about dsitribution of wealth). Yet, that data clearly indicates some problems with Austrian theory.

JohnnyV13
09-26-2009, 01:13 AM
And likewise, have you read what happens when you inflate the paper supply?

Yeah. Funny how the German economy recovered (ahead of the rest of hte world) once Hitler issued credit and used it to produce munitions.

Meanwhile, the Weimar REpublic attempted laissez-faire Austria economic theory. And guess what, that government collapsed due to its terrible economy.

Taco John
09-26-2009, 02:37 AM
Yeah. Funny how the German economy recovered (ahead of the rest of hte world) once Hitler issued credit and used it to produce munitions.



Your argument in favor of Keynesian economics is that it quickly raises armies for the purposes of conquering neighbors?

Is this the kind of society that you want to live in? We the people are just lug nut proles in the socialized war machine? Because that's what Keynesian economics gives you. That is the fruit of the Keynesian spirit no matter what direction you examine it from. The fruit of it is the same: death, destruction, corruption and WAR. The system has no soul. It's not tied to anything except for faith in government. And the money flows in one direction: to whoever gets to play Ceasar for this eight year cycle. Except that he's not really playing Ceasar. He's a front guy for the small factions of world players who get to take advantage of the fact that we the people are not willing to tie the money down to anything.

You will certainly best me in your knowledge of the economics of the Wiemar Republic. I don't know enough about their government structure during that time to be able to comment on it. But I would wager that a fair examination of their collapse might reveal government (either subtly or not-so-subtly) trying to manipulate the market towards their own intents, and ended up creating something entirely different and unexpected (volatile even).

Keynesian economics is empire building economics. Austrian economics is republic building economics. We are at the cross roads in history where we get to make the choice about how power is distributed in this world: a socialized empire, or a distributed republic. And these G20 summits aren't about making Iowa's economy any better. They're certainly not about making America's economy any better. We're moving in a clear direction on this question.

This split is the pit in the gut of many Americans right now. They can sense the hell that is being created for us each day as we dig ourselves deeper and deeper into debt, and government consolidates more and more and ever more power, with the clear purposes of moving that power to the central stage through mechanisms such as economic treaties that masquerade as "free trade," but filled with quote-unquote "fair trade" restrictions - which amount to levers for government to pull in order to suck money out of the system and manipulate the flow. Hopefully whoever is on each switch is honest, because they're not accountable to we the people. They're accountable to whatever Czar their purview falls beneath. And whoever that Czar answers to. And that one. And that one. On up to wherever the top is.

I must have lost the plot somewhere. You seem knowledgeable about economics, so maybe you can help me. What is the argument in favor of Keyensian economics, because I'm having a real hard time findng the charm of it.

JohnnyV13
09-26-2009, 03:25 AM
Sure it can. You start your post with a premise that is absolutely wrong. In any market, prudence can be replaced by overhyped expectations, and greed sets in - causing overinvestment. And when a politically motivated central bank tied at the hip of both the congressional and executive branches over extends the credit available during a boom, the result is an exaggeration of the booms, and hence an exaggeration of the bust.




Thank you for your concise refutation of Ron Paul's assertion that this economic collapse could not have occurred without the fed.

Since "prudence can be replaced by overhyped expectations" there is nothing in Austrian economic theory which suggests that bankers could not have become as entranced by the misapplied academic formulas behind credit default swaps (correlation formula) as they did under current financial rules.

In fact, banks world-wide applied these formulas, not just financial institutions in countries whose central banks were pumping easy credit into the real estate market.

Taco John
09-26-2009, 03:37 AM
Thank you for your concise refutation of Ron Paul's assertion that this economic collapse could not have occurred without the fed.



Link? I've listened to well over 200 hours of Ron Paul lectures speeches, and misc, and read nearly as much, and I haven't run across "could not have occured without the fed."

"Perpetuated by the fed..."

"Excaserbated by the fed..."

"Caused by the fed..."

"Would not have been so bad without the problems caused by fed..."


I've heard these. I don't believe I've run into "could not have occured without the fed." I could be wrong though. Maybe you've seen something that I haven't.


Since "prudence can be replaced by overhyped expectations" there is nothing in Austrian economic theory which suggests that bankers could not have become as entranced by the misapplied academic formulas behind credit default swaps (correlation formula) as they did under current financial rules.

Nothing except for easy credit, I guess. Where do you suppose easy credit is created?

JohnnyV13
09-26-2009, 04:36 AM
I must have lost the plot somewhere. You seem knowledgeable about economics, so maybe you can help me. What is the argument in favor of Keyensian economics, because I'm having a real hard time findng the charm of it.

Sigh, I wrote a long post about Keynsian theory, the underpinnings of war, and how Keynsianism is abused by self interested politicians, but my damn computer crashed and I lost it all. I don't have the energy to rewrite it now. But, I'll get around to it sometime.

But, I will leave you with one interesting tid bit, actually both Keynsians and Austrians share a common problem when it comes to understanding human economic behavior, THEY'RE ECONOMISTS.

Sounds silly right? BUt, economists tend to presume that maximizing economic efficiency is the primary goal behind human economic behavior. This presumption is flawed.

In fact, the central driving force behind economic choices is actually biological in nature. Human being engage in economic activity with the fundamental purpose of maximizing how many genes they get into the next generation. People might not be cognitively aware of this purpose, but its the underlying psychology.

Conseqeuntly, if an economic activity increases the number of genes you successfully get into the next generation, then darwinian selection favors that behavior, EVEN IF IT CAUSES ECONOMIC ruin!

That's why you see persistent self destructive economic behavior on a regular basis. Think about how Joe Six pack with a crummy job can get laid like crazy if he goes on a drunken credit spree, even if it eventually leads to financial ruin. He might get more, and hotter, woman than if he acts prudently his entire life within a low level salary.

Its exactly like the male black widow spider who has sex with the female spider, even though she eats him afterward (to provide sustinance to her young). Darwinian selection FAVORS this behavior, even tho it leads to his death. because it maximizes how many of his genes get into the next generation (a biological concept known as inclusive fitness).

***SPRAYER
09-26-2009, 06:50 AM
Ron Paul is great! He handles these interviews so well, and no matter how hard they try to out flank him, he constantly gets his point across in a way that anyone can understand.



That was good. I'm starting to pay attention to this guy. I admit it, I didn't during the campaign and I bought into some other opinions that he was a loose cannon.

JohnnyV13
09-26-2009, 09:33 AM
Link? I've listened to well over 200 hours of Ron Paul lectures speeches, and misc, and read nearly as much, and I haven't run across "could not have occured without the fed."

"Perpetuated by the fed..."

"Excaserbated by the fed..."

"Caused by the fed..."

"Would not have been so bad without the problems caused by fed..."


I've heard these. I don't believe I've run into "could not have occured without the fed." I could be wrong though. Maybe you've seen something that I haven't.




Nothing except for easy credit, I guess. Where do you suppose easy credit is created?

Watch your own clip. Paul says this crisis would not have happened without the fed pumping money into the system, even when the journalist raises the point that the financial community shares a lot of the blame.

Given the profits financial institutions were making from these defective instruments, I don't think that higher interest rates would have stopped them. This inference is supported by the fact that BANKS AROUND THE WORLD participated in the dervivative market, even in countries with a tight money policy.

Too bad the journalists don't know enough about Austrian theory to understand the duex ex machina in Paul's assertion.

Taco John
09-26-2009, 09:51 AM
That was good. I'm starting to pay attention to this guy. I admit it, I didn't during the campaign and I bought into some other opinions that he was a loose cannon.


I have over 200 hours of mp3 audio which consists of nearly every media interview, lecture, and speech from the Ron Paul presidential campaign, starting with his announcement, and running all the way through to his dropping out of the race and creating the Campaign for Liberty.

Just for fun, here are my two favorite campaign videos. It was such a pleasure and a delight to donate $500 to his campaign and participate in the event which was his run for the office. Those money bombs were exciting. It's a real shame he didn't get a fair shake for the ground he was breaking. It was very frustrating, but what can I expect from the media machine.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG_HuFtP8w8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG_HuFtP8w8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG2PUZoukfA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG2PUZoukfA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Taco John
09-26-2009, 09:56 AM
Watch your own clip. Paul says this crisis would not have happened without the fed pumping money into the system, even when the journalist raises the point that the financial community shares a lot of the blame.

Given the profits financial institutions were making from these defective instruments, I don't think that higher interest rates would have stopped them. This inference is supported by the fact that BANKS AROUND THE WORLD participated in the dervivative market, even in countries with a tight money policy.

Too bad the journalists don't know enough about Austrian theory to understand the duex ex machina in Paul's assertion.


There's a significant difference between saying that a particular economic phenomenon "could not have occurred" and saying that this particular disaster "was a direct result of..."

And you speculating that high interest rates wouldn't have made a difference is nothing but rank speculation made for one purpose and one purpose only: to take the fed off the hook, erasing any accountability they have. Now THAT'S deus ex machina.

banyon
09-26-2009, 11:49 AM
moving that power to the central stage through mechanisms such as economic treaties that masquerade as "free trade," but filled with quote-unquote "fair trade" restrictions - which amount to levers for government to pull in order to suck money out of the system and manipulate the flow.

This is another charge I hear bandied about pretty often by libertarians without much of an explanation.

Although many, including myself, adovcate having some of these features in our treaties, I'm not aware of such efforts garnering very much success and impact in any of our significant trade treaties.

What treaty that is harming us (which I can agree is occurring) has these supposed features (which I disagree is the true reason for the economic harm)?

KILLER_CLOWN
09-26-2009, 12:05 PM
Rep. Alan Grayson: “Has the Federal Reserve Ever Tried to Manipulate the Stock Market?”

You Tube
Saturday, September 26, 2009

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mXmNpdYpfnk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mXmNpdYpfnk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This is Rep. Alan Grayson asking Federal Reserve General Counsel Scott Alvarez about the Fed’s independence.Watch him squirm.

JohnnyV13
09-26-2009, 03:33 PM
There's a significant difference between saying that a particular economic phenomenon "could not have occurred" and saying that this particular disaster "was a direct result of..."

And you speculating that high interest rates wouldn't have made a difference is nothing but rank speculation made for one purpose and one purpose only: to take the fed off the hook, erasing any accountability they have. Now THAT'S deus ex machina.

I'm not a fed apologist. And, I actually support Paul's move to audit the fed. I'm sure you've seen the youtube video of the fed regulator in congress saying how she didn't know where any of the money went. It would be funny if the buffoonery didn't involve billions of our money.

That being said, if Paul's theory were correct, then financial institutions based in nations with a tight money policy would not have participated in the derivative market. Though, I will admit that easy credit did make it easier to gamble on high leverage positions.

And, how is Paul's assertion "would not have happened without the fed's actions" any less rank speculation than anything I've said. At least my contention is supported by widespread participation of international financial institutions, irregardless of their central bank's monetary policy.

Dave Lane
09-26-2009, 03:53 PM
The guy is very eloquent, its hard to believe he's as dumb as he is to current times and financial markets. Its like he's Herbert Hoover teleported to the present time.

BucEyedPea
09-26-2009, 03:53 PM
The problem Ron Paul and the Austrian theory has, it can't explain 19th century recessions.
That's false information. It explains all the 19th century recessions and depressions which I've posted about. Those were caused by a central bank doing the same things the one we have today does. Sorry but you've been misinformed.

Taco John
09-26-2009, 03:55 PM
At the very least we find agreement, then, that the Fed should be audited. Even given that I believe that Austrian economics is a morally superior form of economics to Keynesian (the reasons for which I've outlined in this thread and past postings on the subject), it's hard to diagnose a problem and come to agreement on a solution when the guts of the machine are kept behind a veil of secrecy. I'm glad that despite our differences of opinion on economics, we can come to agreement that accountability should be par for the course.

There may be hope for this country yet. :)

SNR
09-26-2009, 03:56 PM
The guy is very eloquent, its hard to believe he's as dumb as he is to current times and financial markets. Its like he's Herbert Hoover teleported to the present time.What do you think of his bill to audit the fed?

BucEyedPea
09-26-2009, 03:57 PM
The guy is very eloquent, its hard to believe he's as dumb as he is to current times and financial markets. Its like he's Herbert Hoover teleported to the present time.

You're also misinformed ( not to mention dumb) if you're comparing Paul to Hoover who the Austrian School criticizes as well for his interference in the markets that helped bring about the Great Depression. Hoover is falsely reported to have been non-interventionist but he was not. Get your facts right instead of just parroting the typical mainstream propaganda mills that want to keep the status quo.

And just because something is current or modern is not an argument as to whether it's better or more workable. It should be what works. Our current system is broken is that what you're recommending?

BucEyedPea
09-26-2009, 03:58 PM
That was good. I'm starting to pay attention to this guy. I admit it, I didn't during the campaign and I bought into some other opinions that he was a loose cannon.

Who said that? I've heard of Paul be described like that.

BucEyedPea
09-26-2009, 03:59 PM
I see the same agents of our broken status quo are in this thread.

banyon
09-26-2009, 04:28 PM
I see the same agents of our broken status quo are in this thread.

How do you see them? Aren't they supposed to be on fake ignore?

***SPRAYER
09-26-2009, 07:58 PM
I have over 200 hours of mp3 audio which consists of nearly every media interview, lecture, and speech from the Ron Paul presidential campaign, starting with his announcement, and running all the way through to his dropping out of the race and creating the Campaign for Liberty.

Just for fun, here are my two favorite campaign videos. It was such a pleasure and a delight to donate $500 to his campaign and participate in the event which was his run for the office. Those money bombs were exciting. It's a real shame he didn't get a fair shake for the ground he was breaking. It was very frustrating, but what can I expect from the media machine.




My get up and go, must have got up and went. ;)

Sigh.

I don't know who or what to believe any more. But I do know this, a presidential candidate has to have some charisma and some personality to win a general election. For example, Dennis Kucinich, for all his far left wacko beliefs, is a man I think (as far as politicians go) has some integrity. But he's creepy, you know?

Mike Huckabee, however, he looks and sounds like a decent guy and I like him personally, and I think he could actually defeat B.O. in 2012, but I'm just not sure if he would just wind up being yet another guy I put some faith in only to be let down.

So far the only guy I ever voted for that I still admire and respect is Ronald Reagan.

I voted for GW Bush twice only because Al Gore took campaign money from the Chicoms and Bill Clinton sold and also let them steal nuclear weapons technology from us. That is unforgivable--- and John Kerry was a malingerer in Viet Nam but worse than that he came home and volunteered to be used by the communists as a tool of propaganda. GW's second term was a disaster, the only reason I don't regret voting for him besides John Kerry being a piece of shit was the appointments of Alito and Roberts to the supreme court.

Direckshun
09-27-2009, 08:28 AM
Something I cannot get my head around is that this crisis occurred because regulations on subprime loans were relaxed. Financial institutions weren't forced to hand out those zany loans, they chose to and for once they were actually allowed to by the federal government.

Unless I am mistaken, it is a classic case of a disaster coming out of loosening of regulations. And somehow this validates libertarianism.

I seriously cannot get my head around that. TJ or some likeminded libertarian needs to explain how I'm mistaken.

Because to me, nobody comes out of this more discredited than Paul, who advocates a laissez faire economic policy that, to me, was what created this mess.

HonestChieffan
09-27-2009, 08:30 AM
They were required to give loans in low income areas to low income applicants.

***SPRAYER
09-27-2009, 08:30 AM
The guy is very eloquent, its hard to believe he's as dumb as he is to current times and financial markets. Its like he's Herbert Hoover teleported to the present time.

Says the guy who voted for that dope B.O.

Direckshun
09-27-2009, 08:37 AM
They were required to give loans in low income areas to low income applicants.

Are you saying the government forced lenders to loan to subprime borrowers?

***SPRAYER
09-27-2009, 08:38 AM
Are you saying the government forced lenders to loan to subprime borrowers?

Yes. The federal government forces private institutions to lend to unqualified blacks, hire unqualified blacks, promote unqualified blacks...

Where have you been?

Direckshun
09-27-2009, 08:47 AM
Yes. The federal government forces private institutions to lend to unqualified blacks, hire unqualified blacks, promote unqualified blacks...

Where have you been?

On another planet, I suppose. What forced these banks to lend to subprime borrowers?

***SPRAYER
09-27-2009, 08:52 AM
On another planet, I suppose.

NO, on this one. Pay attention, Sparky...



O'S DANGEROUS PALSBARACK'S 'ORGANIZER' BUDS PUSHED FOR BAD MORTGAGESBy STANLEY KURTZ

Last Updated: 3:53 AM, September 29, 2008

Posted: 3:53 AM, September 29, 2008

WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do?<p>
</p><br>Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.<p>
</p><br>In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes - and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.<p>
</p><br>In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.<p>
</p><br>THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.<p>
</p><br>CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.<p>
</p><br>Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.<p>
</p><br>In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.<p>
</p><br>Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.<p>
</p><br>Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.<p>
</p><br>ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to<p>
</p><br>Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.<p>
</p><br>Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans.<p>
</p><br>In February 1990, Illinois regulators held what was believed to be the first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA. The challenge was filed by ACORN, led by Talbott. Officials of Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, her target, complained that ACORN pressure was undermining its ability to meet strict financial requirements it was obligated to uphold and protested being boxed into an "affirmative-action lending policy." The following years saw Talbott featured in dozens of news stories about pressuring banks into higher-risk minority loans.<p>
</p><br>IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.<p>
</p><br>Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting - for example, by overlooking bad credit histories.<p>
</p><br>By September 1992, The Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott's program as "affirma- tive-action lending" and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities.<p>
</p><br>And Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed - Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories."<p>
</p><br>What made this program different from others, the paper added, was the participation of Fannie Mae - which had agreed to buy up the loans. "If this pilot program works," crowed Talbott, "it will send a message to the lending community that it's OK to make these kind of loans."<p>
</p><br>Well, the pilot program "worked," and Fannie Mae's message that risky loans to minorities were "OK" was sent. The rest is financial-meltdown history.<p>
</p><br>IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than<p>
</p><br>Barack Obama.<p>
</p><br>When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.<p>
</p><br>He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a "motor voter" case and partnered with him on his 1992 "Project VOTE" registration drive.<p>
</p><br>In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.<p>
</p><br>More than that, Obama was<p>
</p><br>fundingthem. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.<p>
</p><br>That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.<p>
</p><br>MORE, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report ac knowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.<p>
</p><br>Indeed, the report<p>
</p><br>bragsabout pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."<p>
</p><br>Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological. Sound familiar?<p>
</p><br>The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.<p>
</p><br>And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled<p>
</p><br>morefunding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.<p>
</p><br>In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."<p>
</p><br>IN short, to understand the roots of the subprime-mort gage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to<p>
</p><br>Barack Obama.<p>
</p><br>Then you'll truly know what community organizers do.<p>
</p><br>Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC.
print email share
buzz
digg
reddit
fark it
facebook
rss WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.

In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes - and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.

In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.


THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.

Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.

ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/dangerous_pals_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK

***SPRAYER
09-27-2009, 08:54 AM
Follow the bouncing ball, Direkshunless

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Dave Lane
09-27-2009, 09:29 AM
What do you think of his bill to audit the fed?

No problem with that at all. Hell all branches of the government should be audited in my opinion. That and taxing the churches would balance the budget.

If everyday americans have to be audited then the rest should as well.

Dave Lane
09-27-2009, 09:33 AM
So far the only guy I ever voted for that I still admire and respect is Ronald Reagan.


Seriously? Really? Why?

Taco John
09-27-2009, 10:15 AM
I don't know who or what to believe any more.






That's because Republicans have stopped believing in republicanism, and have been operating under whatever principles seems (or can be sold to them as) conservative in nature at whatever given time it is in history. But currently, there is no single unifying principle that unites Republicans - except perhaps to be against Obama. But being against something doesn't work - all you do is give it more power when you operate from the political thought-space that you are against something - rather than being for something else.

***SPRAYER
09-27-2009, 10:22 AM
That's because Republicans have stopped believing in republicanism, and have been operating under whatever principles seems (or can be sold to them as) conservative in nature at whatever given time it is in history. But currently, there is no single unifying principle that unites Republicans - except perhaps to be against Obama. But being against something doesn't work - all you do is give it more power when you operate from the political thought-space that you are against something - rather than being for something else.

I hear ya. Here's our dilema, time is running short and the only thing that can prevent a military dictatorship is a third party emerging. I just don't see that happening. I just don't see things ever getting better, or returning to some semblance of order.

In fact, my level of frustration reached such a low that I actually started to entertain the thought of the democratic party swinging back to center, but every time I start to think that I just might give a democrat a fair look, along comes a maniac like Jimmy Carter to remind me just why I haven't ever voted for a democrat.

banyon
09-27-2009, 01:16 PM
They were required to give loans in low income areas to low income applicants.

This is a complete falsehood. There was no requirement.

If there is, then show it. You can't because there isn't.

banyon
09-27-2009, 01:26 PM
Here's the scary part, the banks writing these rules, armed with this pie in the sky neolibertarian theory are only pushing for further and further deregulation and are evicerating our ability to manage our own economy with the new Doha round rules:

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, tell us about your sense of what will happen in terms of financial regulation.


LORI WALLACH: There’s an incredible contradiction, where the summit communiqué is going to, on one hand, talk about regulating finance, and at the same time, they’re going to talk about adopting the Doha WTO expansion, and a huge part of that agreement is deregulating finance.


And the problem is that the G-20 commitments aren’t binding. It’s a commitment of faith on the countries about what they’re going to do domestically. But the WTO rules are very binding and enforceable by sanctions. And so, it’s hard to know if it’s ignorance or it’s cynicism, but if the Doha round goes into place, all of the world’s countries will have a commitment not only to keep in place the existing WTO deregulation dictates on finance, but to deregulate further, right in the midst of what seems to be a global commitment to re-regulate.


JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, is there any—among the countries now that are going to be getting increased attention, in terms of the G-20’s growing role now in world economic affairs, are there any countries, specifically, that are trying to lead a fight for a greater regulation?


LORI WALLACH: Well, see, this is the most peculiar aspect of it. The European Union, as you just mentioned, Angela Merkel, among others, have been pushing for more regulation, and in fact they want the G-20 to have a—to establish a global floor of regulation. The US hasn’t been for that. It’s not going to be in this communiqué, but they’ve really been pushing. But simultaneously, it’s the European Union that is the major instigator of deregulation.


And so, the big development is we finally were able to get documents that actually explain what the plan is for the WTO Doha round, and it’s the European Union that’s been pushing the worst of it. I mean, they literally want a provision that is a standstill, a freeze in place, on regulation, while simultaneously they’re calling for re-regulation. You can’t have it both ways.


JUAN GONZALEZ: What’s your sense of how—of the Pittsburgh protests, as they’ve been developing in the last few days? Any impact at all in terms of how the world leaders are regarding those protests at all?


LORI WALLACH: Well, unfortunately, the thing that has been evident here is an incredible overreaction as far as trying to squelch the possibility of the protesters having any proximity to the actual venue, and so there’s a ratio of something like, you know, ten policemen, bristling with gear, to each protester. And it’s really a sort of—to me, it’s just a—it’s a horror show in the context of free speech and civil liberties. I mean, there’s obviously a need to secure the President’s safety and that of other heads of state, but this is above and beyond, and they’ve brought in police from places like Miami, who are just, as we saw with the FTAA ministerial, you know, storm troopers looking to beat up kids. It’s just a worrisome feature every time there is a major summit, the attempt to basically make it impossible for the public’s message to be heard by the leaders.


JUAN GONZALEZ: Lori, I’d like to ask you about the role of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Here in the United States, he’s supposed—he’s leading the efforts now to increase regulation over the financial sector. But he played a previous role under the Clinton administration in what was happening at the WTO in terms of financial deregulation. Could you talk about that?


LORI WALLACH: Yeah. This is actually a serious problem. So, most people don’t even realize that the World Trade Organization has an agreement called the Financial Services Agreement that explicitly applies to over a hundred countries and mandates major deregulation. Just for instance, it has a rule that you cannot have a domestic law, even if it applies equally to foreign and domestic companies, that limits the size of a financial service firm—insurance, banking, securities. So when everyone talks about putting into place rules about “too big to fail,” there’s a WTO dictate that says you can’t do that. A lot of other really extreme deregulation rules. That agreement was never brought to a vote in Congress, so a lot of members of Congress have no idea it’s there.


Well, one interesting fact we found was, although Daddy Bush started negotiation, Clinton is the one who locked it up. And it was actually Geithner, when he was in the Treasury Department working for Robert Rubin during the Clinton administration, who was the lead Clinton administration Treasury Department negotiator. So he is, in a way, the guy who closed the deal. And so, he knows about it. He has to know about the existing agreements. And so, theoretically, he should be the guy who’s most aware of the perils, in the sense that he was part of the whole Clinton-era deregulation, including domestically.


I mean, the busting of Glass-Steagall, which, by the way, we listed in the WTO as one of our commitments, to reform Glass-Steagall, because it created firewalls between insurance, securities, banking. It, you know, kept banks from gambling with our savings—good idea. The WTO commitment lists reforming Glass-Steagall, getting rid of it. That all happened during Clinton. So not just at the WTO, but domestically, a lot of the folks who came from the Clinton administration who are now in the Obama administration—Larry Summers, Geithner—were in on this.

So, now Geithner is talking about re-regulating domestically, needs to get on that WTO piece, but cannot have a Doha round that has more deregulation. I mean, the basic principle here should be do no further harm. But then they have to go back and fix the WTO rules.


And we’re actually going to be launching a campaign with some of the unions and others, and it’s being launched around the world to work on that. You can see more on our website, which is tradewatch.org. This is something that actually can be fixed, but it’s going to take a lot of public attention to make the leaders do it.


JUAN GONZALEZ: So, you’re saying, in effect, that if the Congress attempted, in one way or other, to reinstitute a form of Glass-Steagall or to regulate the ability of—the growth of these too-big-to-fail banks, that the United States could be running into conflict with the World Trade Organization Financial Services Agreement?

LORI WALLACH: So this agreement was in 1999, which was at the peak of the sort of lunacy for deregulation. So it, itself, the Financial Services Agreement, for instance, has a rule that applies that you can’t regulate according to size. The US then took on additional commitments, as did about thirty other countries, mainly rich ones, but a couple of developing countries, and that’s called the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. And that agreement is deregulation on steroids. So the US actually has a specific WTO commitment that’s called “standstill,” and in that commitment, we’ve agreed to basically lock ourselves into the place of deregulation that we were in 1999.


Now, obviously, Congress is talking about re-regulating, but in our WTO commitments, we’ve basically agreed, in the areas we’ve bound—and we’ve bound everything. We did take one very important exception in the area of derivatives. That would be for onion futures. We bound every other kind of security, stock, derivatives, but we took a reservation for onion futures. It’s a really scary set of limitations. Now, it’s obvious that there’s an imperative politically to re-regulate. The question is, if sincerely there’s going to be re-regulation, this backdoor deregulation has got to be closed. So the existing WTO rules have to be changed, and obviously the Doha round’s further deregulation has to be stopped.


But a big part of this is, we need to make such a ruckus about it that basically a huge spotlight is shined on the issue, because there are a lot of very powerful financial service interests. By the way, they are the ones who wrote, largely, the Financial Services Agreement, in cahoots with the government. There’s a book from an American Express guy talking about how he and AIG and the others wrote these rules. Those guys want more of the same. I mean, one of the agreements that we found would be put into place automatically if the Doha round were adopted, as the G-20 communiqué calls for, is a limit on accounting regulation, regulation of the accounting sector, that was co-written by Arthur Andersen. I could not make this up. This is actually the document. It’s done. And so, the last thing we need are these limits.


And so, basically, the work that we all have at hand is to beat the banksters on a variety of fronts. It’s going to be a big fight domestically, but we’re not going to be successful domestically, nor around the world, where in less powerful countries—and maybe the US and Europe get away cheating the rules a little bit at the WTO, but the other countries around the world don’t have that discretion. So it’s not just a matter of what we need domestically, though it’s critical. You don’t want Granny’s pension robbed, your mortgage gone. But on top of that, for the other countries, we’ve got to fix these WTO rules and stop the Doha round.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/25/report_us_initiated_wto_rules_could

***SPRAYER
09-27-2009, 04:17 PM
democracynow.org

ROFL

That's a communist front group you dope.

KC native
09-27-2009, 04:40 PM
democracynow.org

ROFL

That's a communist front group you dope.

Seriously, how many times am I going to have to repost this for you simpletons?

Federal Reserve Director on the CRA
Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - October 4th, 2008, 2:00PM

From the Federal Reserve:

"Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution’s individual circumstances. Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution’s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner." (emphasis added)

What about mergers or acquisitions — did the CRA get in the way of that?

"Since 1988, there have been more than 13,500 applications for the formation, acquisition, or merger of bank holding companies or state-member banks reviewed by the Federal Reserve Board. Over this time, twenty-five applications have been denied, with eight of those failing to obtain Board approval involving unsatisfactory consumer protection or community reinvestment issues."

Wow, just 8 out of 13,500. That’s less than one tenth of 1%.

What about the methods of forcing compliance?

"The CRA is one of several laws enacted to ensure that consumers and communities have access to financial services and products regardless of location or demographics. Congress sought to achieve that goal not by imposing rigid, prescriptive rules but by charging regulators to use flexible standards that could change, as needed, over time."

Gee, this doesn’t sound too onerous; What was all the brouhaha about?

"The debate surrounding the passage of the CRA was contentious, with critics charging that the law would distort credit markets, create unnecessary regulatory burden, lead to unsound lending, and cause the governmental agencies charged with implementing the law to allocate credit. Partly in response to these concerns, the act adopted by Congress included little prescriptive detail."

What are the requirements of the CRA?

The CRA simply requires the Federal Reserve and the other federal financial supervisory agencies:

• to encourage federally insured depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of their entire communities, including low- and moderate-income areas, consistent with safe and sound operations;
• to assess their records of performance under the CRA during examinations; and
• to take those CRA records into account when evaluating proposals for expansion.

Hey, that sounds pretty flexible. What sort of discretion exists in applying the CRA:

The law gives the agencies considerable discretion and flexibility to fashion programs and procedures to carry out the purposes of the law, to issue implementing regulations that include measures of performance, and to modify those regulations in response to changing markets. This flexibility has contributed to CRA’s relevance and adaptability through times of rapid economic and financial change, and widely differing economic circumstances among neighborhoods.

Wow, this stuff makes the wingnuts and gasbags look pretty foolish. What’s your source for all this?

All quotes are come from the testimony of Sandra F. Braunstein, Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, before the Committee on Financial Services, or from the Federal Reserve website.


>

Source:
The Community Reinvestment Act
Sandra F. Braunstein, Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs
Before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives
February 13, 2008
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/braunstein20080213a.htm

See also:
The Community Reinvestment Act: Its Evolution and New Challenges
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
Community Affairs Research Conference, Washington, D.C. March 30, 2007
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/Bernanke20070330a.htm

Community Reinvestment Act
http://www.federalreserve.gov/DCCA/CRA/default.htm

The Performance and Profitability of CRA-Related Lending
Robert B. Avery, Raphael W. Bostic, and Glenn B. Canner
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, November, 2000
Economic Commentary
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2000/1100.htm

Chocolate Hog
09-27-2009, 04:42 PM
lol Shtsprayer is hilarious

KC native
09-27-2009, 04:45 PM
Here's another

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/cra-thought-experiment/

CRA Thought Experiment
Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - June 26th, 2009, 6:30AM

Given how thoroughly the “CRA caused everything” meme has been debunked, you have to wonder why some poor souls are still pushing this discredited political talking point (other than as linkbait).

I’ve already spilled too many pixels debunking Phil Gramm’s attempt to shift blame from his radical deregulation to other parties (see partial list at bottom). Oh, and I dropped another 322 pages explaining the actual causes of the crisis.

And yet, these attempts at misplaced fault continue.

So this morning, I want to try a completely different approach — the opposite of our usual data driven, analytical framework. Rather than show more facts, data and specific details, instead, I want to do a little thought experiment.

Imagine, if you will, that the discredited far right meme is actually correct: Assume that the CRA was a prime cause of the mortgage, credit and housing related crises.

Yes, he typed, it was all the CRA’s fault. (Stay with me here).

Assume arguendo that CRA legislation forced banks into making high risk, ill advised loans. And, let’s further assume a huge percentage of these government mandated mortgages have gone bad. The buyers who could not legitimately afford these homes or otherwise qualify for other mortgages have defaulted, and these houses are either in default, foreclosure or REOs.

What would this alternative nation look like?

Given the giant US housing boom and bust, this thought experiment would have several obvious and inevitable outcomes from CRA forced lending:

1) Home sales in CRA communities would have led the national home market higher, with sales gains (as a percentage) increasing even more than the national median;

2) Prices of CRA funded properties should have risen even more than the rest of the nation as sales ramped up.

3) After the market peaked and reversed, Distressed Sales in CRA regions should lead the national market downwards. Foreclosures and REOS should be much higher in CRA neighborhoods than the national median.

4) We should have reams of evidence detailing how CRA mandated loans have defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers versus the national default rates;

5) CRA Banks that were funding these mortgages should be failing in ever greater numbers, far more than the average bank;

6) Portfolios of large national TARP banks should be strewn with toxic CRA defaults; securitizers that purchased these mortgages should have compiled list of defaulted CRA properties;

7) Bank execs likely would have been complaining to the Bush White House from 2002-08 about these CRA mandates; The many finance executives who testified to Congress, would also have spelled out that CRA was a direct cause, with compelling evidence backing their claims.

So much for THAT thought experiment: None of these outcomes have occurred.

Zero.

In reality, the precise opposite of what a CRA-induced collapse should have looked like is what occurred. The 345 mortgage brokers that imploded were non-banks, not covered by the CRA legislation. The vast majority of CRA covered banks are actually healthy.

dcp_52aa00241The biggest foreclosure areas aren’t Harlem or Chicago’s South side or DC slums or inner city Philly; Rather, it hs been non-CRA regions — the Sand States — such as southern California, Las Vegas, Arizona, and South Florida. The closest thing to an inner city foreclosure story is Detroit – and maybe the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler actually had something to do with that.

~~~

I spent a year of my life researching and writing in painstaking details what the actual causes of the crisis were. I put together all of the moving parts as to what the actual causes were — and wrote them up in Bailout Nation, to wit: Irresponsibly ultra-low rates that led to a huge housing boom; a failure by the Fed to supervise non-bank lenders; An abdication of lending standards by both banks and non-banks; Radical deregulation of financial markets; the now discredited belief that markets can self-regulate; a shadow derivative market allowed to operate unlike every other financial product; Compensation schemes that rewarded short term risk taking over long term profitibility; Increases in leverage to the major investment houses from 12-to-1 to 35-to-1; These were the causes of the collapse — not some 1977 legislation.

Its not simply that the overwhelming amount of evidence points to many factors outside of the CRA, the actual results of CRA were minor. Relative to these other ginormous factors, the CRA impact is all but irrelevant. And to date, nobody has produced any data based evidence that the CRA was relevant to the crisis. Not one shred.

Until that evidence is produced, the CRA remains a marker, one that separates proponents of intellectually honest debate versus the parrots of partisan talking points, not worthy of your time or effort.

>

Previously:
Kroszner CRA & the Mortgage Crisis (December 3rd, 2008)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/kroszner-cra-the-mortgage-crisis/

Federal Reserve Director on the CRA (October 4th, 2008)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/10/federal-reserve-director-on-the-cra/

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair on CRA: NOT Guilty (December 5th, 2008)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/fdic-chairman-sheila-bair-on-cra-not-guilty/
Misunderstanding Credit and Housing Crises: Blaming the CRA, GSEs (October 2nd, 2008)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/10/misunderstanding-credit-and-housing-crises-blaming-the-cra-gses/
George Bush: Goal Increase Minority Homeowners by 5.5 Million in a Decade (October 14th, 2008)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/10/goal-increase-minority-homeowners-by-55-million-in-a-decade/
How Lending Standard Changes Led to the Housing Boom/Bust (October 21st, 2008)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/10/how-lending-standard-changes-led-to-the-housing-boombust/

Other Sources:
Subprime Suspects
Daniel Gross
Slate, Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2008, at 2:08 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2201641

National Real Estate Trends
1,962,567 Foreclosure Homes | $172,170 Average Foreclosure Sales Price
http://www.realtytrac.com/TrendCenter/default.aspx

http://www.realtytrac.com/states/index.html

Chocolate Hog
09-27-2009, 04:49 PM
Kc Native answer this.......

Who created Fannie and Freddie?

Who turned a blind eye to Bernie Madoff?

Who created the Federal Reserve?

Why is the dollar only worth 4% of what is was in 1913.

Direckshun
09-27-2009, 07:38 PM
Kc Native answer this.......

Who created Fannie and Freddie?

Who turned a blind eye to Bernie Madoff?

Who created the Federal Reserve?

Why is the dollar only worth 4% of what is was in 1913.

I'm trying to figure out the point you're making.

banyon
09-27-2009, 08:51 PM
I'm trying to figure out the point you're making.

I don't know the first few posts, but it ends with the Bilderbergs or Rothschilds or International Jewish banking conspiracies.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 08:52 PM
How Well Has The Federal Reserve Performed for America?

George Washington Blog
Sunday, September 27, 2009

Let’s put aside for a moment allegations that the Federal Reserve has manipulated the markets.

And let’s put aside for a minute claims that the Federal Reserve System creates trillions of dollars in unnecessarily debt for the U.S. government and American people that would not be incurred if the government took back the “power to coin money” granted to the government itself in the Constitution.

Let’s look at the Fed’s actual performance and determine how bad – or good – the Federal Reserve has really been for America.

Initially, Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke have both said that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression through its poor monetary policy.

Many also blame the Fed for blowing an unsustainable bubble between 2001-2007 through artificially low interest rates. If this sounds too much like an Austrian economics perspective, that may be true. But remember that Hayek won the Nobel prize in 1976 partly for arguing that artificially low interest rates lead to the misallocation of capital and to bubbles, which in turn lead to busts.

Moreover, one of the Fed’s main justification has been that it can provide a “counter-cyclical” balance. In other words, during boom times it can put on the brakes (”take the punch bowl away right as the party gets started”), and during busts it can get things moving again. But as economist Jane D’Arista has shown, the Fed has failed miserably at that task:

Jane D’Arista, a reform-minded economist and retired professor with a deep conceptual understanding of money and credit [has a] devastating critique of the central bank. The Federal Reserve, she explains, has failed in its most essential function: to serve as the balance wheel that keeps economic cycles from going too far. It is supposed to be a moderating force in American capitalism on the upside and on the downside, the role popularly described as “leaning against the wind.” By applying its leverage on the available supply of credit, the Fed can slow down a boom that is dangerously overwrought or, likewise, stimulate the economy if it is sinking into recession. The Fed’s job, a former chairman once joked, is “to take away the punch bowl just when the party gets going.” Economists know this function as “counter-cyclical policy.”

The Fed not only lost control, D’Arista asserts, but its policy actions have unintentionally become “pro-cyclical”–encouraging financial excesses instead of countering the extremes. “The pattern that has developed over the last two decades,” she wrote in 2008, “suggests that relying on changes in interest rates as the primary tool of monetary policy can set off pro-cyclical foreign capital flows that tend to reverse the intended result of the action taken. As a result, monetary policy can no longer reliably perform its counter-cyclical function–its raison d’être–and its attempts to do so may exacerbate instability.”…

The Fed is also supposed to act as a regulator for banks and their affiliates, but failed miserably in that role as well.

Indeed, that central bankers’ central banker – BIS – has itself slammed the Fed:

In a pointed attack on the US Federal Reserve, [BIS and its chief economist William White] said central banks would not find it easy to “clean up” once property bubbles have burst…

Nor does it exonerate the watchdogs. “How could such a huge shadow banking system emerge without provoking clear statements of official concern?”

“The fundamental cause of today’s emerging problems was excessive and imprudent credit growth over a long period. Policy interest rates in the advanced industrial countries have been unusually low,” [White] said.

The Fed and fellow central banks instinctively cut rates lower with each cycle to avoid facing the pain. The effect has been to put off the day of reckoning…

“Should governments feel it necessary to take direct actions to alleviate debt burdens, it is crucial that they understand one thing beforehand. If asset prices are unrealistically high, they must fall. If savings rates are unrealistically low, they must rise. If debts cannot be serviced, they must be written off.

“To deny this through the use of gimmicks and palliatives will only make things worse in the end,” he said.

Remember also that Greenspan acted as one of the main supporters of derivatives (including credit default swaps) between the late 1990’s and the present (and see this).

Greenspan was also one of the main cheerleaders for subprime loans (and see this).

The above list is only partial. But even without market manipulation or unnecessary interest charges, it shows that the Federal Reserve has performed very poorly indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VPJHfmP3g4&feature=player_embedded

http://www.webofdebt.com/order.php

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ZKI&q=%22the+Federal+Reserve+definitely+caused+the+Great+depression%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59405

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=kdo&q=hayek+%22nobel+prize%22+%22interest+rates%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/03/fed-has-failed-by-its-own-terms.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/26/AR2009092602706.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/bis-slammed-federal-reserve-and-other.html

http://www.usagold.com/greenspanderivatives.html

http://www.wilmott.com/blogs/satyajitdas/index.cfm/2006/5/24/Fear-and-Loathing--WMD-or-What-are-Derivatives

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/speeches/2005/20050408/default.htm

http://www.google.com/search?q=greenspan+encouraged+subprime&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/09/how-well-has-federal-reserve-performed.html

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 08:53 PM
I don't know the first few posts, but it ends with the Bilderbergs or Rothschilds or International Jewish banking conspiracies.

As usual you know nothing about which you speak.

banyon
09-27-2009, 08:54 PM
As usual you know nothing about which you speak.

So, I'm sorry, did I leave out your favorite? Was it the reptilians?

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 08:57 PM
So, I'm sorry, did I leave out your favorite? Was it the reptilians?

Do a little research before you just throw out random names like "Jewish Bankers" "Bildebergs" :LOL:

banyon
09-27-2009, 09:37 PM
Do a little research before you just throw out random names like "Jewish Bankers" "Bildebergs" :LOL:

What? Pray tell, what "research" should I have done?

I know the actual history of the Fed, should I know every lunatic conspiracist version of it too?

You don't know the Bilderberg theory? It's all over the Prison planet crap site you post from every day, surprised you have missed it all this time.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 09:40 PM
What? Pray tell, what "research" should I have done?

I know the actual history of the Fed, should I know every lunatic conspiracist version of it too?

You don't know the Bilderberg theory? It's all over the Prison planet crap site you post from every day, surprised you have missed it all this time.

The bolded version is probably the only version you know.

Bildeburg isn't a theory and that shows your complete ignorance.

banyon
09-27-2009, 09:42 PM
The bolded version is probably the only version you know.

Bildeburg isn't a theory and that shows your complete ignorance.

I've at least spelled it correctly, and it most certainly is a theory.

I note you offer no additional "research" or sources for the facts/view I am supposed to be missing here.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 09:44 PM
I've at least spelled it correctly, and it most certainly is a theory.

I note you offer no additional "research" or sources for the facts/view I am supposed to be missing here.

you can start with the wiki since i know you trust that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

Daniel Estulin has been covering the Bilderberg meetings for quite a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Estulin

About the Author

Daniel Estulin is an award-winning investigative journalist who has been researching the Bilderbergers for over 14 years. His 2005 book The Real Story of the Bilderberg Club now an international best seller was named foreign language, non-fiction “Book of the year” in Canada by a prestigious and independent periodical The Kingston Eye Opener. Estulin was one of only two journalists in the world who witnessed and reported (from beyond the heavily guarded perimeter) the super secret meeting at the Dorint Sofitel Seehotel in Rottach-Egern, Munich, Bavaria, Germany, on May 5–8, 2005. In September 2006, Estulin released what we can surely consider to be one of the most controvertial books of the year The Secrets of the Bilderberg Club.

The Real Story of the Bilderberg Club has become a world literary phenomenon and an international best-seller. In Spain, the book has sold 155,000 copies and is in the 13th print run. Worldwide, the book has been sold to 42 countries and has been translated into 24 languages. The latest countries to buy the rights are: the United States, South Korea, Germany, Russia, Switzerland and Austria.

The sequel, The Secrets of the Bilderberg Club has sold almost 46,000 copies in six months in Spain. International rights to the sequel will be auctioned off beginning 2007.



Jim Tucker has been covering Bilderberg since 1975.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Tucker_%28journalist%29

Biography

After working for various newspapers, Tucker started writing for the rightwing newspaper The Spotlight in the early 70's until its closure in 2001. Shortly after the paper's closure, Tucker and many former Spotlight employees founded the similarly-toned American Free Press.

Tucker's efforts to infiltrate the 1999 Bilderberg meeting at the Hotel Caesar Park in Sintra, Portugal were chronicled by British reporter Jon Ronson in his book, Them: Adventures with Extremists and broadcast as part of Channel 4's Secret Rulers of the World series.

In 2005, Tucker wrote Jim Tucker's Bilderberg Diary, a book chronicling his thirty-plus years of exposing the Bilderberg Group.

Tucker is featured prominently in a film made by paleoconservative Alex Jones, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement (2007), which partially deals with the 2006 Bilderberg conference at the Brookstreet Hotel in Ottawa, Canada.

Both Tucker and Jones are featured in the documentary film, New World Order (2009).

banyon
09-27-2009, 09:49 PM
you can start with the wiki since i know you trust that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

Well, maybe you should try reading that link too, specifically starting here:

Conspiracy theories
Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the group is frequently accused of secretive and nefarious world plots.[18] Critics include the John Birch Society,[19] the Canadian writer Daniel Estulin, British writer David Icke, American writer Jim Tucker and radio host Alex Jones.ROFL

Bilderberg founding member and, for 30 years, a steering committee member, Denis Healey has said:[20]

“ To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing. ”

According to the American Friends of Bilderberg, the 2008 agenda dealt "mainly with a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, US-EU relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran".[10]

[edit] Origins of conspiracy theories
Jonathan Duffy, writing in BBC News Online Magazine states:

“ No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted... In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.[21] ”

This secrecy, and lack of reporters in attendance was also noted by Guardian writer Charlie Skelton in his reports on the 2009 conference held in Athens, Greece. Skelton himself was detained by police on three occasions for taking photographs in the vicinity of the conference resort.[22]

According to the investigative journalist Chip Berlet, the origins of Bilderberger conspiracy theories can be traced to activist Phyllis Schlafly. In Berlet's 1994 report Right Woos Left, published by Political Research Associates, he writes:

“ The views on intractable godless communism expressed by Schwarz were central themes in three other bestselling books which were used to mobilize support for the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign. The best known was Phyllis Schlafly's A Choice, Not an Echo, which suggested a conspiracy theory in which the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals dominated by members of the Bilderberger group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 09:57 PM
Well, maybe you should try reading that link too, specifically starting here:

I'm well aware of the slanted opinions posted there but you challenged that it even existed. The 1st step is always admitting you have a problem.

banyon
09-27-2009, 09:59 PM
I'm well aware of the slanted opinions posted there but you challenged that it even existed. The 1st step is always admitting you have a problem.

No I didn't challenge that the group existed, perhaps you should go back and reread the thread.

I challenged the theory (referring to the bizarre conspiracist one).

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 10:01 PM
No I didn't challenge that the group existed, perhaps you should go back and reread the thread.

I challenged the theory (referring to the bizarre conspiracist one).

ok what conspiracist theory in particular are you referring to? and if you find something can you prove it wrong?

banyon
09-27-2009, 10:12 PM
ok what conspiracist theory in particular are you referring to? and if you find something can you prove it wrong?

The one where they're secretly trying to rule the world obviously (through the Fed, world government, whatever). You can't ever prove conspiracy theories wrong for the most part. That's what makes them conspiracies. They are non-falsifiable which is why they can continue indefinitely.

I'll remind you of this thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=211164&highlight=prison+planet&page=2), where I pointed out how NONE of the "predictions" made by prison planet had come true. Yet, it never impacts their credibility with you does it? Does anything they have to say ever have to come true? Can you think of something they broke that later turned out to be accepted as true?

That's a big problem with 99.9% of the stuff you post here.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 10:18 PM
The one where they're secretly trying to rule the world obviously (through the Fed, world government, whatever). You can't ever prove conspiracy theories wrong for the most part. That's what makes them conspiracies. They are non-falsifiable which is why they can continue indefinitely.

I'll remind you of this thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=211164&highlight=prison+planet&page=2), where I pointed out how NONE of the "predictions" made by prison planet had come true. Yet, it never impacts their credibility with you does it? Does anything they have to say ever have to come true? Can you think of something they broke that later turned out to be accepted as true?

That's a big problem with 99.9% of the stuff you post here.

Some of those you linked are true and just because others haven't happened yet doesn't mean they can't/won't. Those pulling the strings know they have to move very slowly and do a lot of testing to see how far they can push their agenda. They have patience, all the money they need and corruptable people that serve them so just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it isn't set up and usable at any time.

Personal question Banyon, do you believe in Jesus? and what version if you don't mind answering. You don't have to say if you don't want to, but i'm very curious.

banyon
09-27-2009, 10:21 PM
Some of those you linked are true and just because others haven't happened yet doesn't mean they can't/won't. Those pulling the strings know they have to move very slowly and do a lot of testing to see how far they can push their agenda. They have patience, all the money they need and corruptable people that serve them so just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it isn't set up and usable at any time.

Which have been proven true? By the way, most sources credibility is judged on what they get wrong, not what they get right, so this is a pretty generous test.

Personal question Banyon, do you believe in Jesus? and what version if you don't mind answering. You don't have to say if you don't want to, but i'm very curious.

I am a Christian. A Non-denominational Protestant.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 10:32 PM
Which have been proven true?



I am a Christian. A Non-denominational Protestant.

well 1st this story

Netherlands to catalogue its population under 'citizen service number' scheme

was linked from http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=1879

2nd this story

RFID Tags in New US Notes Explode When You Try to Microwave Them

Has this been disproven?

3rd story

U.S. Hate Crime Bill Could Criminalize Biblical Truth, Pro-Family Spokesman Fears

was linked from http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/afa/272004c.asp

4th story

Your brain may soon be used against you

was linked from the Philadelphia Inquirer

5th story

Criticizing Israel will be a taboo in United States

the legislation stalled and that page linked from http://www.balochistanpost.com/

shall i go on?

Was Jesus just a conspiracy theorist?

banyon
09-27-2009, 10:40 PM
well 1st this story

Netherlands to catalogue its population under 'citizen service number' scheme

was linked from http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=1879

It links to a private corporate site that appears to no longer have the information? That's tremendous!

2nd this story

RFID Tags in New US Notes Explode When You Try to Microwave Them

Has this been disproven?

Has it been proven? Because that's what I asked.

3rd story

U.S. Hate Crime Bill Could Criminalize Biblical Truth, Pro-Family Spokesman Fears

was linked from http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/afa/272004c.asp

Did it happen? No? Who cares what it was linked to? I've never heard of that site, it it supposed to mean something?

4th story

Your brain may soon be used against you

was linked from the Philadelphia Inquirer

Is your brain being used against you right now? For anyone? What difference does it make if the Philidelphia enquirer linked to it? Did they run the same nutty headline? I doubt it.

5th story

Criticizing Israel will be a taboo in United States

the legislation stalled

shall i go on?

No sh*t? Really? Was it also perhaps mischaracterized in the first place too?


Again, you seem to have missed the point, it's not what's "not disproven" it's what's "proven". These nutty theories can never be disproven, because the response would always be "not yet!" or something similar.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 10:50 PM
It links to a private corporate site that appears to no longer have the information? That's tremendous!



Has it been proven? Because that's what I asked.



Did it happen? No? Who cares what it was linked to? I've never heard of that site, it it supposed to mean something?



Is your brain being used against you right now? For anyone? What difference does it make if the Philidelphia enquirer linked to it? Did they run the same nutty headline? I doubt it.



No sh*t? Really? Was it also perhaps mischaracterized in the first place too?


Again, you seem to have missed the point, it's not what's "not disproven" it's what's "proven". These nutty theories can never be disproven, because the response would always be "not yet!" or something similar.

The Lord will come like a thief in the night, I guess you can be on the wrong side until then and see if that works.

banyon
09-27-2009, 10:55 PM
The Lord will come like a thief in the night, I guess you can be on the wrong side until then and see if that works.

My salvation is not contingent on believing your horseshit conspiracy theories about RFID chips and the Bilderbergs.

This stuff has nothing to do with the 2nd coming. Check your Bible for the part where Jesus talks about how no man knows the time of his coming.

People have been bitching and moaning about the end of civilization and the end times since about 100 years after the crucifiction. It's just worse now because anyone with a website can speculate about it endlessless without needing to be credible or have any facts at their disposal.

I also notice how you abandoned the ridiculous claim that anything from that site had been proven true in favor of this ill-considered attempt to gain the moral high ground by trying to appear more religous or pious or something. It nicely places an exclamation point on the paucity of your argument in this thread.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 11:01 PM
My salvation is not contingent on beleiving your horseshit conspiracy theories about RFID chips and the Bilderbergs.

This stuff has nothing to do with the 2nd coming. Check your Bible for the part where Jesus talks about how no man knows the time of his coming.

People have been bitching and moaning about the end of civilization and the end times since about 100 years after the crucifiction. It's just worse now because anyone with a website can speculate about it endlessless without needing to be credible or have any facts at their disposal.

I also notice how you abandoned the ridiculous claim that anything from that site had been proven true in favor of this ill-considered attempt to gain the moral high ground by trying to appear more religous or pious or something. It nicely places an exclamation point on the paucity of your argument in this thread.

So no Mark of the beast? and despite what Jesus taught you deny that Satan is in control of this world?

No man knows the time of his coming that is true, but we can certainly see the signs.

Who do you think is in control of this world?


Matthew 4

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

banyon
09-27-2009, 11:08 PM
No man knows the time of his coming that is true, but we can certainly see the signs.

Who do you think is in control of this world?

No one, though some have tried, they typically fail miserably (Napoleon, Hitler, etc.)


Matthew 4

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

I'm not sure why you think Jesus's 40 days of temptation are relevant to a point you were trying to make.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 11:12 PM
No one, though some have tried, they typically fail miserably (Napoleon, Hitler, etc.)




I'm not sure why you think Jesus's 40 days of temptation are relevant to a point you were trying to make.

So if anyone was worried about Napoleon or Hitler trying to take over the world they were nutty conspiracy theorists?

I would say they had that right.

Jesus tells us that Satan is in control of this world via several passages(one in my sig), why would it be so hard to ascertain that a group of people control or are trying to control the entire planet?

banyon
09-27-2009, 11:28 PM
So if anyone was worried about Napoleon or Hitler trying to take over the world they were nutty conspiracy theorists?

Er, no, those people had large advancing armies and their plans were well known and accepted.

I would say they had that right.[/quote]

Jesus tells us that Satan is in control of this world via several passages(one in my sig), why would it be so hard to ascertain that a group of people control or are trying to control the entire planet?

Spiritually speaking, that is true, but that also does not mean every (or any particular) political nutty conspiracy theory is true.

Is it hard to determine that someone is trying to control the world? With credible evidence? No. With pure conjecture by the same people who've been wrong repeatedly and are trying to sell merchandise to a niche fringe group? Yes.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 11:42 PM
Spiritually speaking, that is true, but that also does not mean every (or any particular) political nutty conspiracy theory is true.

Is it hard to determine that someone is trying to control the world? With credible evidence? No. With pure conjecture by the same people who've been wrong repeatedly and are trying to sell merchandise to a niche fringe group? Yes.


I have never stated i believe in every conspiracy theory, I do however refuse to check my brain at the door be it with a political party or group of so-called believers running off the edge of a cliff. Sell Merchandise? Yes it's true stop the presses people need sustenance to survive and get the message out. How many people would give their stuff away for free? I haven't spent a dime on "merchandise" from these people.

googlegoogle
09-28-2009, 12:13 PM
Seriously? Really? Why?

Who then Carter? Clinton? ROFL

googlegoogle
09-28-2009, 12:16 PM
The guy is very eloquent, its hard to believe he's as dumb as he is to current times and financial markets. Its like he's Herbert Hoover teleported to the present time.

ROFL

Look who's calling someone dumb.

Jebus. you don't like Reagan?

Who's you're favorite pres?

***SPRAYER
09-29-2009, 05:49 AM
ROFL

Look who's calling someone dumb.

Jebus. you don't like Reagan?

Who's you're favorite pres?

Here's a clue:

Mmmmmm mmm mmmm