Forget about the great speeches given by Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio or even Newt and Calista Gingrich! Everyone is talking about the Clint Eastwood speech featuring an empty chair, representing an invisible Barack Obama. The stunt has even led to a new term, Eastwooding, as people post pictures on the Internet of empty chairs. Eastwood was brought in as a ′mystery guest′ speaker. A good deal of buzz was created and we were all eager to see Clint hammer away at Obama in true Dirty Harry fashion. But after a lame version of the theme from the film, ″The Good, The Bad and The Ugly″, we instead got Eastwood the comedian. Not that such is all bad, Clint is a funny guy. Who else gets laughs from mere facial contortions as he squints, glares and scowls? You ca watch the video of Clint Eastwood and the empty chair below.
Image Source: IKEA Furniture
The empty chair bit was apparently ′borrowed′ by Clint Eastwood from an old dinner theater routine used by Morey Amsterdam, probably best known for playing Buddy Sorrell on ″The Dick Van Dyke Show″. But when you get right down to it, how better to represent Barack Obama than using an empty chair? We′ve always known Obama is an empty suit. Some of us think he is empty headed. So Clint just took it to the ultimate conclusion, Obama is just empty! Non-existent! Invisible! Obama is a complete ZERO!
So lighten up Chris Matthews and the rest of the ′Nattering Nabobs′! Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair as seating an invisible Barack Obama was a good joke. Look at the results, we now have a new term, Eastwooding. Maybe he could have cut his routine down a few minutes after the Joe Biden joke, but hey, he′s Clint Eastwood! If he wants to go over his time allotment, who is going to stop him? So watch the video of Clint Eastwood and the empty chair below. Go ahead…, MAKE MY DAY!
August 31st, 2012 at 5:31 am
I just love old Clint.
Whodda Thunk the ‘Man With No Name’ would evolve into a major star ?
Eva Longoria is a Hottie, no doubt. But, she sure doesn’t carry the Gravitas (sorry, just Had to use that word)of Dirty Harry.
Check this out. Snot Good, but it’s interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1_m-8CTNVU
August 31st, 2012 at 5:55 am
Clint Eastwood at RNC while talking to empty chair stool symbolizes the absent President Obama, AWOL: Absent With Out Leave, from Oval Room White House failure of discharging the duties and responsibilities of the Presidency for which he was elected to perform.
Many Democratic critics are outraged and have attacked Clint Eastwood for being disrespectful to President Obama.
The reality, they are externalizing their own frustration and outrage that Eastwood demonstrated to the public that Obama is screwing around playing golf, hanging out with Hollywood celebrities, making TV appears on late night shows with comedians.
Flying around on vacation on Air Force One, wasting fuel. Absent from working with Financial Committee in Congress.
Basically, the empty chair is the reality of President Obama truancy of Presidential responsibilities while American families are suffering and losing jobs and losing housing.
August 31st, 2012 at 7:37 am
Fox News is still touting it as a smash hit (even as the Romney campaign tries to quickly bury it), while it is unanimously panned by everyone else.
This can’t be tied to your “liberal bias” nonsense because “everybody” saw it as a failure.
So what will people remember from this convention?
Yup. Clint.
Made my day.
I also think it was more of a Bob Newhart theft, rather than Morey Amsterdam.
Either way, nice to connect with that young demographic.
What, Chuck Norris wasn’t available?
August 31st, 2012 at 8:38 am
“What, Chuck Norris wasn’t available?”
Yeah, I’m sure Eva Longoria will want to talk policy like you and Snow.
Jimmy Carter ?
SandraFluke ?
Pelosi ?
Hell, just throw Joe up there and let it be done with !
Bwaaa haha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa… cough
August 31st, 2012 at 11:17 am
GEEEEZUS !
What a World Class Assclown this Queef buzz
has turned out to be. Just compare his postings from a month ago to now.
I can Smell the Fear and Desperation through the screen. On the other sites they have stopped the catty hissing and gone to flat out Website Vandalism.
This isn’t Just going to be a Humiliating Rejection of the Kenyan Klown Oh No ! This is going to mark the End of Liberalism. Once we have Tasted the Blood of their Aborted Fetuses and Smelled the Fecal Stink of their Same Sex Marriages, there will be a Savage Orgy of Libkill.
I can barely wait to see the Freak Show in Charlotte. Nasty Code Pink Pigs. Rabid Gun Freak Psychos like Sarah Brady. And then I suppose they will drag out those Cornball Styrofoam Fluted Pillars for Hussein to do his Mussolini Chin Jut.
Conservatism is Ascendent,buzzboo. Sell your Volt and get a Ticket to Paradise. Cuba ? Venezuela ? Zambia ?
August 31st, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Its so quiet the Crickets are starting to worry about their pensions
August 31st, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Romney was upstaged by an empty chair. Perfect.
August 31st, 2012 at 11:18 pm
@ Micky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCqnt94xuzw&feature=fvwrel
I kin hear the wind whistlin’ through here
~~~~~~~~~~~~
@ Bust tinklin’ tinker
Is that all you could puke up ? I could fart better digs on the Demoncraps.
September 1st, 2012 at 2:07 am
@ Buzz:
“This can’t be tied to your “liberal bias” nonsense because “everybody” saw it as a failure.”
The folks in the audience enjoyed it. They didn’t think it was a failure! But then, they are not limited to the elitist crowd from the Georgetown-Manhattan pipeline.
Was it too long? Maybe. Clint might have done better had he wrapped it up after the Biden joke. But it was funny and to the point. Obama is a failure and a ZERO!
September 1st, 2012 at 5:41 am
Did anyone hear Bob Schieffer’s POS rant on Clint last night ? Classic liberal bias.
I just love how liberals take creative artistic license as their own when guys like Chris Rock and Bill Maher dribble puke.
But when John Lovitz or Clint chime in the Three Stooges (NBC,CBS,ABC)make, as Biden would say, “a big fckin deal” out of it.
Best Thunker
I’m dying to hear one failed President Carter upstage another at his own convention.
Maybe by now Pelosi will tell us whats in the bill ?
Speaking of empty chairs, did you know that Eva Longoria is the DNC Co-chair ?
Then again, lets hope that chair doesnt have arm rests, she’ll never get her fat ass out of it.
September 1st, 2012 at 5:43 am
Heres Bob
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7420182n
September 1st, 2012 at 7:57 am
@Mick-
Who the hell is Eva Longoria?
Is she the Governor of New Mexico?
Susanna Martinez
Is she mayor of a small town in Utah?
Mia Love
Is she a retired Secretary of State who grew up during Jim Crow in the South?
Condi Rice
Is she from Indian heritage and is the Governor of South Carolina?
Nikki Haley
Is she a lawyer? Published author?
Laura Ingraham
Is she a lawyer,have a 2 hour news show and is good looking?
Megyn Kelly
The perfect combo for the DNC would be Longoria and Jason Biggs. He can speak on the validity of her queefs.
ROFL
September 1st, 2012 at 8:56 am
Carters speech will be a gift.
No matter what he says.
Me new blog, not open to the public yet;
“Theres little doubt among most anyone over 50 that Carters so called ”Presidency” set in motion policies that still haunt us and are responsible for the birth of more far left crap initiatives than anyone could of imagined.
Today however, this Palestinian who was masquerading as the President of The United States would actually be of use in times when we need to be reminded of how misguided catering’s to those who believe Government is a higher power, is a failed ideology, called ‘Liberalism’ and it’s offshoot b!tch “Environmentalism”.
Jimmy, please, say something, anything in hopes that those too young to remember will google you and see a shining example of how an administration repeating the same mistakes, represents the epitome of insanity catering to insane demographics that til this very day hold our country hostage to concocted fears. Fears designed to herd us into a collective whos new world order comes from a single ideology that thinks cutting Redwoods down to size will give sprouts and shrubs a feeling of worth and accomplishment.
Please Mr.Carter, the mastermind behind the CRA, which destroyed our economy some 40 years later, you would serve us well if you also orated how your endeavors with failed Middle Eastern policies brought us 911.
Please explain your masterminding illegally legislated corn subsidies based on a lie claiming fossil fuels would be non existent in 15 years and how strong-arming banks with regulations produced national success that today is glowing like Chernobyl.
Was Obama in America during these times ?
Yes, but it wouldn’t seem so. He was probably stoned and missed the whole four years.
Then again, those four years very well could of been an inspiration.”
September 1st, 2012 at 11:18 am
@ Micky
Me likee nascent blog.
Carter also gave away OUR Panama Canal.
Made US look like fools in Iran.
and made me Lust In Ma Heart for
RONALDUS MAXXUS
September 1st, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Assclown? Queef?
Yet again an illumination of character, or lack thereof.
It doesn’t take much to evoke obscenities and name calling, does it?
Yet again ladies and gentlemen, your GOP base.
September 1st, 2012 at 12:19 pm
“And the audience loved it”.
Well what wouldn’t they have loved, not exactly a neutral audience?
Oh, wait a minute…”We will care for the needy…” Oh, that will do it.
Crickets.
Romney even did a practiced hesitation for the inevitable cheers and was briefly flummoxed when he was met with silence.
September 1st, 2012 at 1:11 pm
fuzzboo
The audience was ‘your GOP base’.
They were thinking more along the lines of
‘there will be opportunity for the needy to care for themselves’.
I Know ! I Know ! That is a concept so alien to You People that you get that ‘You Didn’t Build That’ look in your eyes.
It is plain to see that You are at Wits End ( here, I could suggest that your Wits End and it’s Genesis, are One and The Same. Butt Hey ! I’m saving all my Cheap Shots for next week ).
I am not without empathy. You are not only witness to the Historical failure of the Kenyan Usurper to do anything but confirm what Everyone was Thinking when he was given the Keys To The Kingdom, but you are also seeing the very End of the Great Society Socialist Experiment.
It will be at least a generation before your old grand children see another such adventure into foolishness.
September 1st, 2012 at 3:24 pm
“It doesn’t take much to evoke obscenities and name calling, does it?
Yet again ladies and gentlemen, your GOP base.”
And yet you’re childish enough to accuse and think its only our base that speaks in these terms.
Everyone does it.
Everyone ought to stop being such fcking hypocrites.
Wanna look back on all the sht your base called Bush for 11 1/2 years and still counting ?
Some ass hole said the other day that a womans body could reject a fetus if the rape was legitimate.
99% of “our base” and congress told him to take a hike.
Joe the gaffe gauntlet accused the right of wanting to put blacks back in chains and a majority of you ass holes praised him.
The difference is you ass holes think you own free speech to the point PC stands for ‘political crap’ and you cant even call a terrorist a terrorist without shtting down your leg but give Napolitano a pass for calling average Americans terrorists.
So please, carry a shovel and a hefty bag if you’re gonna ride that Unicorn on the streets cuz were gettin tired of trying to get somewhere but cant for dodging stupid sht all the time
September 1st, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Hi Micky, thank you for your always thoughtful comments. I am intrigued by this one:
“Please Mr.Carter, the mastermind behind the CRA, which destroyed our economy some 40 years later…”
40 years later! The accusation virtually impeaches itself. Some radio talk show host has been pushing your buttons, Micky.
September 1st, 2012 at 8:20 pm
@ Micky
Me Likee your new blog !
No Likee Jimmah Cahta.
Him give away OUR Panama canal.
Him let Iran rub America’s Nose in it, for 1 1/2 years while the Whole World Watched.
I tried to post this 6 hrs ago, but it wouldn’t post.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:17 am
Best thinker, try being on topic for once.
Do some research before opening your yap.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-reinvented-community-reinvestment-act
“The Reinvented Community Reinvestment Act By Hal S. Scott The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), enacted in 1977 during the Carter Admini- stration, requires federal banking agencies to encourage banks and thrifts (banks, for short) to meet the credit need s of their local communities (including low and moderate income neighborhoods) consistent with safety and soundness considerations. Communities are the areas contiguous to bank offices. At the outset, there are major flaws in the concept. First, absent rac i al discrimination- which is subject to attack under a variety of other federal laws including the Equal Credit Opportunity and Fair Housing Acts (see the Justice Department’s action in the Chevy Chase case)-why wouldn’t the market dictate that banks loan t o their communities when it was consistent with safety and soundness? The Act can only be understood as pressuring banks to make non-market loans. Second, why is this obligation put only on banks, as compared with other lenders- for ex- ample, finance com p anies or credit unions? If the idea is that banks should invest a portion of local savings in the … cont.
September 2nd, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Hi Micky! The link regarding the CRA is to an article written in 1995, and of course does not have anything to say about the 2008 financial meltdown.
So, someone else has told you that the financial crisis was caused by the CRA, and I am curious who it was, and what it was about that explanation that seemed so appealing to you?
September 2nd, 2012 at 6:50 pm
I am commenting on what what people on this site have said.
I have no control over what others of “my” party say.
I am not a part of any group or organization, so to say what “we” said is ridiculous.
I do know that the level of name-calling and obscenities on this site is more than I have ever read on a political website.
Of course there are no repercussions (unless you are deemed a “liberal” and then you are banned for violating some rules that only seem to apply to those not in lockstep with the views of RP).
I have heard people ask, “Where is everybody?”.
Perhaps banning opinions that are dissenting and/or calling these same people liars and ass-clowns is not the best way to “grow the brand”.
Just my humble opinion.
September 2nd, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Yeah, whatever.
I’d rather be stuck with applications of colorful language than some bullsht artist.
You’re in Obamas camp, arguing in favor of his failures and limited success.
So, like it or not, you are one of those people in that organization as much as I’m a part of the GOP.
The only difference is that I can admit when I’m wrong, apologize often, and make no bones about my beef with the right and the changes the right needs to make in order to truly represent the attributes that made this country so fcking awesome.
This country hasnt seen a true dem since JFK.
Ever since then “you all” have become a bunch of progressive/liberal weenies fckin up almost everything you touch.
Which is why republicans have won more presidential seats in that time.
Since George Washington republicans have held the majority of presidencies and stayed truer to their ideology than democrats who’ve changed the fundamentals of their ideology more often than not just for power.
“You guys” elected this schmuck and you own the crap were in right now.
F-ing period
September 2nd, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Other than JFK I give the real democrats full credit for nuking Japan.
Still scratching my head over those Japanese American internment camps.
September 2nd, 2012 at 7:48 pm
“Perhaps banning opinions that are dissenting and/or calling these same people liars and ass-clowns is not the best way to “grow the brand”.”
FuzzHead?
You naturally are referring to Harriet Reid and Bela Peeloooski—-right?
Wasn’t BJ Clinton impeached for LYING under oath?
In my humble opinion—Joe Biden is the epitome of a “ass-clown”.
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Buzz, cut the crap.
Dissenting opinions on topic have never been banned at this blog
September 3rd, 2012 at 4:27 am
@ Worst Thinker:
You really are living in some sort of fog of the unknown, as Ayn Rand would say. The 2008 Crash had NOTHING to do with GW Bush waging war in Iraq, his tax cuts, nor the Medicare doughnut-hole filler. It was all about the housing bubble and how it was funded.
The CRA forced banks to dole out subprime loans with little to no background checks. So is it any wonder that people who could not afford a house went belly up? As for the Crash itself, that was the end result of using the derivatives market to fund the subprime loans. Which, if you honestly research the subject, you’ll find Robert Rubin’s fingerprints all over. There was also a protege of his from Goldman Sachs, some British woman whose name escapes me at the moment, who was a major player in creating mortgage-backed securities.
September 3rd, 2012 at 9:00 am
“Hi Micky! The link regarding the CRA is to an article written in 1995, and of course does not have anything to say about the 2008 financial meltdown.”
I placed the majority of the blame on Carter.
To which you said “my buttons were being pushed”.
Obviously you were wrong if you were doubting the CRA was his doing.
As Andy explained, it took a little under 40 years for this accumulation of unpaid mortgage’s to finally break the systems back. Bush senior let this legislation stand, Clinton applied the CRA in even less regulated terms, Bush Jr. payed little attention to it until both him and McCain became aware that we had a serious problem on the verge of collapse.
With this in mind they both begged the 111th congress to do something quickly.
Basically, Barney Frank told em both, “dont worry, be happy”
I’ll let Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac take it from here.
Got it ?
If not, I’ve files and files of reports from economists who will clarify what happens when the government threatens banks with stifling regulations in to risks they would normally never take.
In 08 we were once again witness to liberal math that always comes up later to bite you in the ass.
So yes, you can thank Carter.
While you’re at it you can thank Barry for paying 40 cents on the dollar (Obamabucks)to bail out all the leechs who knew they’d never pay the money back while allowing predatory lending to the even dumber ones.
I say roughly each one of this schmucks votes are costing us all about 50,000.00 each.
September 3rd, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Hi Andy!
“The CRA forced banks to dole out subprime loans with little to no background checks.”
Uh, no. Stop listening to fools. Think: Why did unregulated (by CRA) financial companies churn out sub-prime loans in the mid-2000s? And since the CRA is still in force, then why don’t we still see… etc etc.
Hi Micky!
“Got it?” Not yet. I am waiting for a credible citation blaming the CRA for the 2008 financial meltdown.
In the mean time, check this out (especially table 3):
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
Again, someone is pushing your buttons, artfully manipulating your prejudices, and you are falling for it. Shame on them! I want to know who they are.
September 4th, 2012 at 5:02 am
@ BTT:
Duh! We just had a financial collapse based on subprime loans. So why should any bank underwrite anymore? Obama has the Justice Dept busy suing everybody, from Boeing to Navy SEALs. The court system is overwhelmed by bankruptcies and home foreclosures. If you’re going to break a law, or at least skirt one, now is a great time to do so!
September 4th, 2012 at 9:33 am
Thunker maybe doesnt own a home, or understand simple credit vs income.
“Not yet. I am waiting for a credible citation blaming the CRA for the 2008 financial meltdown.”
Yeah well, whats “credible” to you is obviously very subject to ideological bigotry.
I’ve included and blamed all administrations since 1977 for taking advantage of the flawed legislation.
Read and learn.
I understand your indoctrinated mind cant conceive Carters brainstorm as destructive. It just goes to show.
“The connection between these subprime and Alt-A loans and the
financial crisis is somewhat more complex than their relationship to
the recession. Obviously, the decline in housing values and consumer
purchasing power had an adverse feedback effect on the health of
commercial banks of all sizes that had made loans to the small and
large businesses now beset with losses, and to the real estate developers and other businesses that relied on a growing housing market.
Commercial and residential real estate loans are by far the largest
component of bank assets, exceeding 55 percent of all bank loans in
2008, and as the values of commercial and residential real estate
declined so did the health of the banks, large and small, that were
heavily invested in these loans.
But there were other and more direct relationships between the
growth of subprime and Alt-A loans and the financial crisis. First,
the sharp increase in the number of potential home buyers made
possible by the growth of subprime and Alt-A lending drove up the
U.S. housing bubble to unprecedented size. Real home prices in
the U.S. increased 80 percent between 1997 and 2006, far higher
than in any other previous housing bubble. Thus, when the collapse
came, it was far steeper and more destructive than any previous
bubble collapse.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n2/cj30n2-12.pdf
September 4th, 2012 at 9:36 am
“The Role of the Community Reinvestment Act in the Financial Crisis
POLICY FORUM
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Noon
Featuring Edward Pinto, Mortgage Consultant and former Chief Credit Officer at Fannie Mae; Hon. Bruce Morrison, Former Congressman and Former Chair, Federal Housing Finance Board; Robert Litan, Vice President for Research and Policy, Kauffman Foundation and Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution; Mark Stamm, Principal, Stamm Mortgage Management; and John Taylor, National Community Reinvestment Coalition. Moderated by Mark Calabria, Director, Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute.
https://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6603
September 4th, 2012 at 9:42 am
Moderation, why ?
September 7th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Micky tries to support his CRA theory by citing Wallison. But Wallison is upset that anyone would suggest that he says the CRA was responsible for the financial meltdown. See his comments in the 2011 The Atlantic. So, you will need to try harder if you want to find some support for your CRA- caused-the-financial-meltdown theory.
Remember, only 6% of non-prime mortgages in mid-2000s were CRA-related loans to low income folks. Most non-prime lending (inadequate documentation, no money down, etc.) were given to middle class and high income people, to finance their McMansions, reflecting a general collapse in lending standards during the 2000s. Wallison always conflates these categories whenever he flips between describing housing policies and then presenting data on the resulting “effects” on lending practices.
Try the conservative Heritage Foundation…
September 7th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
“Try the conservative Heritage Foundation…”
I did you idiot.
#21
Also CATO which leans Libetarian.
After 3 days all you got is flapping lips were supposed to believe ?
No citations, links or sources ?
“Remember, only 6% of non-prime mortgages in mid-2000s were CRA-related loans to low income folks. Most non-prime lending (inadequate documentation, no money down, etc.) were given to middle class and high income people, to finance their McMansions, reflecting a general collapse in lending standards during the 2000s. Wallison always conflates these categories whenever he flips between describing housing policies and then presenting data on the resulting “effects” on lending practices.”
What a bunch of crap.
CRA was introduced in 77-79
Do you understand the word “accumulation” ?
Every year for the last 50 years people, mostly low income minorities were buying homes on terms they could not afford. Many mortgages were extended due to refinancing, equity loans, or completely abandoned. This happened every day for 50 years.
Banks could not afford to hold the dirty paper any more.
Do the math
This not a partisan argument as you’d like it to be. Which is the only reason you’re being such an asshole.
I’ve placed blame on every administration for using the CRA in its amended forms for the last 50 years.
I’ve also mentioned Bush and McCain, once they became aware of the impending burst, begging the 111th congress to do something to which Bawney Fwank told em to get fcked.
15 years ago I myself took advantage of CRA legislation.
The only difference is I did not make tax payers pay trillions for my negligence and greed when the going got rough.
I opened a business against my equity,(when it was there)in 2 years paid off that loan and dropped an additional 50 large into my mortgage.
So blow me,ya uninformed bigoted moonbat
Is that simple enough for you ?
September 8th, 2012 at 2:39 am
As you might recall, if you seek the truth, BTT, throughout the whole housing bubble, 94% of mortgages were still being paid in full and on time. The 6% that weren’t…, hmmm…, can you say CRA-subprime mortgages???
A fair number of those middle-class McMansions that did get tripped up when the prices crashed did go through foreclosures as well, but the majority of those homes that did get dumped did so in short-sales.
September 8th, 2012 at 7:37 am
“Micky tries to support his CRA theory by citing Wallison. But Wallison is upset that anyone would suggest that he says the CRA was responsible for the financial meltdown.”
Really ? You’re a liar
Wallison has always criticized events caused by the CRA
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122403045717834693.html
September 8th, 2012 at 7:48 am
Wallison has even been attacked by leftist Bush haters for blaming the CRA
So, BTT, you’re certifiably full of sht and were done here.
“WSJ Writer Blames CRA And Fannie/Freddie For Crisis, But Isn’t Sure If The Case Is ‘Sturdy or Just Suggestive”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2008/10/03/172399/wsj-not-sure/
I can search and destroy,you cannot all you do is flap your gums, spewing unverifiable crap.
See ya later m@sterbater
September 9th, 2012 at 7:29 am
Hi Micky!
My remark about the conservative Heritage Foundation seems to have gone over your head. I’ll make it easy for you:
The CRA was “at most incidental to the recession’s causes.”
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/understanding-the-great-global-contagion-and-recession
September 9th, 2012 at 7:39 am
Hey again Micky!
Wallison said “…as far as I can tell, CRA was a relatively small contributor to the crisis…” He wrote this last December, and he seemed miffed that Barney Frank accused him of saying otherwise. Check it out yourself:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/
The problem is that Wallison can’t help himself from bringing up the CRA and ACORN whenever he discusses anything, which tells more about his political obsessions than anything else.
September 9th, 2012 at 8:05 am
Micky!
You are right, this is not a partisan issue. Your CRA-did-it theory is rejected by Republican experts as well as Democratic experts, conservatives as well as liberals. Wallison’s obsessions were rejected by all of the republicans and democrats who served with him on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. And Wallison himself is saying that the CRA wasn’t such a big deal.
It is funny that you dug up Wallison while accusing me of cherry-picking sources. Why not try the Federal Reserve Board, or the Heritage Foundation?
September 9th, 2012 at 8:26 am
Micky and Andy!
Honestly! You guys really, really need to get a better handle on the meaning of fractions and percentages. The 6% of the sample does not “accumulate” over time: even after 30 years. (Hint: the other 94% “accumulates” also) Also, with a little thought, you realize that if a loan is still on the books after 15 or 25 years, then the borrower has a long history of making payments and there is plenty of equity. Loans like that could not sink any lender. The problem was with loans issued in the mid-2000s when lending standards plummeted due to market demand. No one was forced to make those loans.
And Andy, you have resorted to arguing that 100% of CRA loans defaulted while 0% of other loans defaulted. (That is the import of equating a 6% overall default rate with 6% CRA ratio.) Yet in the same breath you acknowledge lots of defaults in the McMansion space. Too funny!
September 9th, 2012 at 9:14 am
Give it up Best Thinking.
I have observed hundreds of debates on here and it appears that it is Extreme Right Wing 1,804 to Anyone not Extreme Right Wing 0.
Of course it is usually decided when the person on the Extreme Right declares, “Game, set, match”, or, “You lose”.
You see, when the participant also gets to declare the winner, it is fruitless to argue a point.
Kinda of like playing for the Washington Generals.
September 9th, 2012 at 9:22 am
You want further insight?
I know this site is not great for looking up archival material, but in the days following Bin Laden’s death, there was an amazing metamorphosis that took place.
Day 1 – Through gritted teeth everyone said, “Great job”.
Day 2 – “Great job, but only possible because of the policies of Bush”.
Day 3 – “It is equal parts Bush and Obama”
Day 4 – “It was mostly Bush and Obama was simply lucky enough to be in office at the time”
Day 5 – “Obama who?”
Day 6 – “If it weren’t for Obama, this would have happened a long time ago”.
Day 7 – “Obama is a Muslim sympathizer”.
Do you now know what you are up against?
September 9th, 2012 at 9:34 am
Wallison is only one man, whom “YOU” have selectively quoted, but juxtaposed to your convenient sound bites has a slew of writings based on how govt force (cra) has screwed up the economy and mentioned many times,as has been presented to you, as you’ve seen, but not read, many times now.
No ass hole, your stupid quip on the Heritage Foundation did not go over my head.
Obviously my reiteration went over yours.
Nor have you anything to say about the conservative libertarian sources at CATO which confirm both rational sides of the aisle see how Govt. intervention fcks up the market.
I would say “free capitalist market” but as any half informed human knows, this is no longer the case.
Capitalism, by its very definition, means free trade. That is all. That’s what capitalism is. It means that government stays out of commerce and industry, just as government stays out of religion, and for the exact same reasons. There is no middle ground to that: it’s either capitalistic, or its opposite: interventionist.
Which means mercantilist.
Which means protectionist.
The CRA was a direct attack on privately owned operations/property in the form of coercion by over regulation.
Theres not much difference between the collateral damage caused by the mindset behind the CRA and the massive debt racked up in the last 4 years
You’ve been presented the facts you asked for, by reputable peers. Most moonbats I discuss the economy with dont even know about the CRA for two reasons. They’re too young to remember, or they’re uninformed, asusual.
Any further discussion is just antagonistic and childish on your part.
As far as Wallison goes, I can plenty of clips where we hear Obama saying he doesnt begrudge success.
Only idiots like you believe the cherry picked sht you read.
If you can find a liberal source criticizing the CRA as I have maybe you’ll stand a chance.
Why is it only Conservatives, Moderate Libetarians can see the results of government force ?
The obvious bias answers this question.
Your ignorance, baseless claims,and lack of certified contradiction never will.
You got what you asked for and still argue you’re right.
You’re pathetic.
bye
See ya later tailgater.
September 9th, 2012 at 9:38 am
Buzzbee asks if we want further insight to sht he pulled out of his ass
No thanks bro
September 9th, 2012 at 9:52 am
“Give it up Best Thinking.”
Bad thinker has nothing to refute basic math and kinetic government intervention and has only attacked the sources he asked for.
Tell me Buzz.
Do you think its really a good idea for government to force banks to make loans based on the governments criteria ?
Do you think its really a good idea for government to force Americans to pay for loans the government deems worthy ? In the form of 6 trillion dollars ? Many times over our GDP with 8-15% unemployment ?
Liberals are wonderfully great on touchy-feely social issues, and for that reason, should never be allowed near the cash register.
September 9th, 2012 at 11:21 am
#48, they are not great on social issues. They are responsible for the massive debt in our country and the resulting suffering that poor kids will endure in the next generation.
#45, what is interesting to me is the obsession liberals like you had with Osama bin Laden for 10 years (and still now after his death), as if he is he entirety of world terrorism and just simply getting rid of him is problem solved. Shows liberals have difficulty with big picture issues.
#44, glad you got that off your chest. Britney Spears couldn’t have whined in better herself!
September 9th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Let’s see, Clinton ends his administration with a surplus and Bush adds trillions in debt.
Yeah, you have to be careful with that cash register.
September 9th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Buzz, you’re getting stupid.
You just bragged about Clintons bi-partisan dealings with congress which gave us that surplus, Ala Newt Gingrich.
Dont forget to mention that Bildo slashed military spending, which resulted in our enemies getting out of hand, to which cost Bush less than a trillion to deal with.
Seriously, you’ve snapped.
You’re no longer worthy of the honest debates I remember having with you.
This dickhead ran up the largest bill ever, in record time, with less bang per buck than this country has ever seen.
And again, you dont dont answer pertinent questions
September 9th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
#45, what is interesting to me is the obsession liberals like you had with Osama bin Laden for 10 years (and still now after his death), as if he is he entirety of world terrorism and just simply getting rid of him is problem solved. Shows liberals have difficulty with big picture issues.
I am sure you would have had the exact same opinion if this happened during a GOP presidency.
Wow, there are no limits are there?
As for Britney Spears, I have no idea of the relevance.
Best thinking, I think you have just been informed that “you lose”.
Let’s see, the revised standings are now 1,804 to 0.
Oh, and by the way, “You’re a liar” along with some other obsenities. For some reason it is always important to include name-calling and obsenities to give an argument more emphasis.
You guys kill me.
September 9th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
“I am sure you would have had the exact same opinion if this happened during a GOP presidency.”
Yes and I did. The obsession of liberals with Osama during both the Bush and Obama presidencies always seemed naive to me.
The relevance of Britney Spears is that you were and still are whining like a Hollywood actress. Ick. Be a man!
September 9th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Gave me a headache
September 9th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Be a man?
You’re kidding, right?
And what, exactly, was unmanly?
I could do my posts Elvis-style with a loaded revolver next to me if that would be considered “more manly”.
Oh, I know, I am supposed to swear more often and if I don’t agree with you hurl insults and call you names.
Sorry, I simply don’t see the point in doing that and I don’t think obsenities belong on a political website. A porn site, sure, maybe even a sports site, but not here.
I have never called anyone on this site a name, ever, nor have I resorted to utilizing obsenities, buy you guys seem to think it is not only appropriate, but, ummm, manly?
September 9th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
“Of course it is usually decided when the person on the Extreme Right declares, “Game, set, match”, or, “You lose”. You see, when the participant also gets to declare the winner, it is fruitless to argue a point. Kinda of like playing for the Washington Generals.”
I’m afraid this is the definition of whining. It’s just something that makes my skin crawl coming from a dude, so sorry if you are offended. You don’t have to swear (Micky, please stop!). Why not just keep your arguments useful and on topic?
September 9th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
” You don’t have to swear (Micky, please stop!). Why not just keep your arguments useful and on topic?”
This blog is a benevolent dictatorship.
If you dont like my terminology as much as I dont like yours, alls fair in love and war.
I used to defend you when you were unfairly treated.
Remember ?
Not anymore, you’re getting what you deserve.
On topic ?
Are you fckin kidding me ?
You dont even answer questions I present that are pertinent but instead meander of into your idiot diatribes that have nothing to do with anything but your own personal rewrites of history, and idiotic premonitions.
BTW
Elvis sucked, always did.
I got free tickets to see his worldwide broadcast from Hi.
Sat in front of our mayor.
He was horrible.
September 9th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Elivs sucked?
Now that is just plain wrong, although by the time of the HI concerts he was done.
September 9th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Don’t worry for me, Buzzbee. I find satisfaction when I detect that my opponents realize they are wrong, even if they bluster and act otherwise. (For instance, I am satisfied in knowing that Micky and Andy will never again tell anyone they meet that Social Security will someday lack resources to pay MASSIVE amounts of VALUABLE money (even if the two of them are too proud to concede that obvious point here).
Micky’s #46 above is implicitly an admission of defeat. This debate started when I challenged Micky’s claim that the CRA caused the financial meltdown, and now we see in #46 that he has silently abandoned this point. He now wants to change the subject to an argument over whether a) Wallison and many others think the CRA is a bad piece of legislation, and b) government intervention in the economy is generally bad. Thank you, Micky!
September 9th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Micky, I’ll surely miss your chivalrous protection of my precarious honor, but I wasn’t talking about you, silly.
September 9th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
“Now that is just plain wrong, although by the time of the HI concerts he was done.”
Why is it wrong when theres no way he was the King of Rock.
The Kings of Rock were 1930s-50s bluesartists who laid the foundation for everyone from Chubby Checkers to Creedence to the Beetles to Eric Clapton to God knows everyone except for some over-rated pop star who had about as much soul as a fishstick.
And no, his career peaked in the 70s right before he became a fat constipated opiate chopmin junkie.
Shows what you know.
==============================================
“Micky and Andy will never again tell anyone they meet that Social Security will someday lack resources to pay MASSIVE amounts of VALUABLE money (even if the two of them are too proud to concede that obvious point here).”
I dont how far up your ass you reached for that additional line of crap.
Everyone here knows I’ve stated the danger this system/ponzi scheme faces.
“Micky’s #46 above is implicitly an admission of defeat. This debate started when I challenged Micky’s claim that the CRA caused the financial meltdown, and now we see in #46 that he has silently abandoned this point. He now wants to change the subject to an argument over whether a) Wallison and many others think the CRA is a bad piece of legislation, and b) government intervention in the economy is generally bad. Thank you, Micky!”‘
You’re an idiot grasping at straws.
Any idiot reading this thread can see you’re lying.
The CRA is a perfect example of government intervention creating false markets, which you argued had little contribution to the bursting bubble.
To be the wiser, one only has to look at the plight of the original settlers who starved to death (4-5 missions in a row) under communal and governmental distribution of land.
Once the people owned private property free of govt intervention and dictates to the market did our economy and people begin to thrive.
@ Buzz
.
Do you think its really a good idea for government to force banks to make loans based on the governments criteria ?
Do you think its really a good idea for government to force Americans to pay for loans the government deems worthy ? In the form of 6 trillion dollars ? Many times over our GDP with 8-15% unemployment ?
Lets try one more time
September 9th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
You really have no basis for being condescending towards me about music.
Let’s put it this way. as a disc jockey for many years, that included many formats, jazz, both free jazz, eg. Ornette Coleman, improvisational, Charles Mingus, Eric Dolphy, etc., into Miles and Bird and all elements of rock. I have to rent a storage unit to store the thousands of records I still own. I simply am not going to play “who knows what” in music. They are simply opinions are they not?
I would be happy to play musical Jeopardy, but I am not aware of a place to do that so I will simply leave it at that.
And quit playing the answer my “Do you beat your wife questions”, I am simply not playing.
I currently believe that we can, as a country, borrow money at almost zero percent interest and will probably never pay it back.
Borrow it now, invest it in our infrastructure, cut spending on ridiculous things (like Romney’s proposed increase in defense spending that the Pentagon never planned on asking for) and we can come out of this.
A strict austerity program, with no tax increases will make us resemble Japan. Ask them how that twenty plus year recession feels.
Trickle down economics? Really?
Even Reagan knew that sometimes taxes have to go up.
Of course every Republican is Grover’s pet, so they can’t really do that can they?
Hypothetical questions were asked of the candidates if they would accept enormous cuts with tax increases that were so miniscule that they would simply not even be noticed. Their answer? Nope.
The far right is not interested in governing, they are zealots and fanatics. No compromise, no discussion, our way or nothing.
Crazy people.
By the way, did you always like to fight with people and what is your objective. You seem to revel in antagonizing anyone that doesn’t agree with you. Ronald J and Best Thinking have made well-constructed arguments and you call them liars and ass holes. Why is that?
September 9th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
“And quit playing the answer my “Do you beat your wife questions”, I am simply not playing.”
Everytime you’re cornered you bring up this bullsht strawman comparison to beating wife questions.
Its simple.
Do you think its really a good idea for government to force banks to make loans based on the governments criteria ?
Your argument is lame, as lame as Elvis.
With such a background, and all you mentioned involved, you pretty much beat your own argument in favor of Elvis.
Rock n Roll in its basic genre makes people want to dance.
I never danced to any Elvis music til Fine Young Cannibals covered “Suspicious Minds”
As a well seasoned percussionist of 40 years now who grew up listening to everything but Chinese Opera my opinion is more valid than most top ten at the time idiots.
One could actually argue that African, Latin, and American Indian tribal genres and rhythms were more responsible for what we’ve been listening to since the first slaves arrived than some pukey fat white guy (musta been a Conservative Cristian) who was labeled a king by bobby sox and bubble gum.
September 9th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
“By the way, did you always like to fight with people and what is your objective. You seem to revel in antagonizing anyone that doesn’t agree with you. Ronald J and Best Thinking have made well-constructed arguments and you call them liars and ass holes. Why is that?”
What are you ?
A fckin shrink now ?
I attack all government shortcomings.
If you read above I also ragged on Bush Jr. and Sr. for using and amending CRA legislation
I’ll give you one example
Ass holes dont acknowledge the merge between Clinton and Gingrich at the center and only credit Clinton with his wonderful surplus.
I hate such intellectually dishonest arguments.
You’re just a full blown ideological bigot who plays for sport.
September 9th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
On another post I commented on the work that Clinton did with Republicans, I guess I am suppossed to mention them by name.
September 9th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
I have a lot of friens that own auto supply companies and they are doing great (no, this has nothing to do with Romney not caring about the auto companies).
Why are they doing well?
Because during the slowdown they borrowed money (again, becaue it is cheap) and invested in machinery, expanded their sales forces and diversified.
Their competition decided to “get small” and cut advertising, R and D and the sales force. They eventually perished and the former companies simply gained market share.
Yup, can’t save your way to a fortune, that is simply an old wive’s tale.
People that have money, make money.
The little old lady that saved her pennies may have accrued some money, but not a lot. You know why? Because if you are saving pennies it takes a lifetime to fill up a jar.
September 9th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
“On another post I commented on the work that Clinton did with Republicans,”
You sentence structure is a dead give away.
I remember the sentence.
Clinton and Newt had little choice.
It was a meeting at the center, as I explained without crediting anyone as the initiator.
The real point is this, crux of the matter…
In no way are Clintons methods of governing aligned with Obamas.
Clinton called his policies and pledges “fairytales”
Good day
September 10th, 2012 at 6:27 am
Talk about revisionist history, Buzz…,
Bill Clinton was adding to the National Debt during his first term at a rate of about 4% of GDP per year, roughly some $270 Billion per year. The Balance Budget Act of 1997 was passed in, well, 1997! Only then did we see budget deficits drop below $200 Billion to a mere $18 Billion in 2000.
As a percentage of GDP, the National Debt grew from 65.9% under Bush’41 to 67.8% during Clinton’s 1st term, then peeking at 68.1% for fiscal year 1996. Only AFTER all of the budget battles with Newt did it decline to 57.7% for FY2000. Bush’43, even with fighting 2 wars, tax cuts, etc, kept it at 65.6% or less up until the crash.
September 11th, 2012 at 9:02 am
Patrick;
“Micky, I’ll surely miss your chivalrous protection of my precarious honor, but I wasn’t talking about you, silly.”
Yeah, I’m sorry also, my mistake. I only caught the part where I was asked to please stop.
It appeared to be a repeated request/quote from a few of Buzzs previous posts