Originally posted by fierobear: No, you should *always* consider the source. I know I'm told that all the time if I post something from Fox News, or from a "conservative blog". Shouldn't the standard apply both ways?
yes. you are a right leaning Tea Birther. and, by applying your "standard" - to be ignored & dismissed
IP: Logged
10:47 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Well, yessir! (salute). I'll be sure to ask your permission to speak from now on.
I'm stuck in California because I can't sell this house and get anything for it. I can't afford to move, just like it says below my avatar. Thank you Democrats, Barney Frank, ACORN and the CRA.
For a guy who doesn't argue politics, you sure have a lot to say about it.
Didn't you move to that house when the market was up? You could have cashed out and gone anywhere. You decided to stay in California. And I am tired of listening to you complain about your personal choices. barney Frank and acorn didn't make you stay in California.
IP: Logged
11:00 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
The budget outlook for 2006-07 and beyond has improved considerably over the past year. In last year’s California’s Fiscal Outlook, we projected that the state faced ongoing structural shortfalls peaking at nearly $10 billion in 2006-07. Since that time, California’s budget outlook has benefited from both a major increase in revenues and a significant amount of savings adopted in the 2005-06 spending plan. As a result of these developments, our current forecast indicates that:
The current year will end with a reserve of about $5.2 billion, up by nearly $4 billion from the 2005-06 Budget Act estimate.
This large carryover reserve will be more than sufficient to keep the state’s budget in balance in 2006-07 without any new program reductions or added revenues-even though current-law projected expenditures exceed projected revenues by $4 billion during that year.
===============================================
Here is an article on California's budget situation for 2011:
My decision to move was BEFORE the housing peak, and while CA had a budget surplus. So...*what* is your point? Should I have been psychic before buying a different house?
"Robert Gordon is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress." (far left think tank).
You might like these people better, they seem to back up the evidence presented by the other article I linked. Not that I'm proposing that there isn't blame to go around but it seems to be misplaced in the CRA.
quote
2008 Nobel Prize in Economics winner Paul Krugman noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.[105] According to Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim. In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event. Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan, Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress, Robert Gordon of the American Prospect, Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation, Daniel Gross of Slate, and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.
Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][113] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".
IP: Logged
11:36 AM
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
If the economy was your only complaint about California, that might hold some water. But you complain about the courts, about the BAR, about Berkeley bred liberals, etc etc etc. I can't recall you ever passing up an opportunity to complain about the state of California. I think you might just enjoy having something to complain about.
------------------ stimpy
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
Here's a hint for you...don't believe everything you THINK.
[This message has been edited by WhiteDevil88 (edited 05-12-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:37 AM
PFF
System Bot
Scottzilla79 Member
Posts: 2573 From: Chicago, IL Registered: Oct 2009
Originally posted by newf: You might like these people better, they seem to back up the evidence presented by the other article I linked. Not that I'm proposing that there isn't blame to go around but it seems to be misplaced in the CRA.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, that's Paul Krugman, and Keynesian economist and a columnist for the New York Times. His conclusions are wrong about government stimulus and so forth.
Nope, that's Paul Krugman, and Keynesian economist and a columnist for the New York Times. His conclusions are wrong about government stimulus and so forth.
Lot's of other names there, not just one.
Also are you disputing the assertions? (I should say the facts like percentages of loans and such)
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-12-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:56 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
If the economy was your only complaint about California, that might hold some water. But you complain about the courts, about the BAR, about Berkeley bred liberals, etc etc etc. I can't recall you ever passing up an opportunity to complain about the state of California. I think you might just enjoy having something to complain about.
Maybe because I can tolerate (barely) all that other garbage. But when the liberal's chickens came home to roost in the economy of this state, that was the last straw.
Maybe because I can tolerate (barely) all that other garbage. But when the liberal's chickens came home to roost in the economy of this state, that was the last straw.
If you can tolerate it, why complain? And if you can't tolerate it, why stay? You would not be the first to abandon their property in order to group financially in another state. Sell off your belongings and leave. Have some balls and make a change.
Or just keep whining.
IP: Logged
12:03 PM
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
Hey, I asked for a new thread but it was ignored. Sorry to participate in getting the thread offf topic.
You are right though Bin Laden is no longer a threat and that's a good thing!
Newf, I have no problem with the thread getting off track, I was actually enjoying the debate on the causes of the housing crash. What bothers me is the childish bickering. Do you really think that the combatants would even go to a new thread? I think they should go to the trash can. Maybe they should call it the sandbox. "Go play in the sandbox, children."
Newf, I have no problem with the thread getting off track, I was actually enjoying the debate on the causes of the housing crash. What bothers me is the childish bickering. Do you really think that the combatants would even go to a new thread? I think they should go to the trash can. Maybe they should call it the sandbox. "Go play in the sandbox, children."
I don't have a huge problem with it either but I know it bugs some people and I admittedly contribute to getingt threads off track at times. As for the childish bickering I could do with out it but can't say that I haven't been dragged into it myself at times.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-12-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:05 PM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
If you can tolerate it, why complain? And if you can't tolerate it, why stay? You would not be the first to abandon their property in order to group financially in another state. Sell off your belongings and leave. Have some balls and make a change.
Or just keep whining.
Do you really want me to answer those questions?
IP: Logged
08:44 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Just like the Center for American Progress (communists) article, it focuses ONLY on the CRA. That is *not* the only factor, only one of them.
I believe I mentioned it wasn't the only factor. I posted in response to your article (which I assume you find unbiased) that asserts the CRA and redlining was a major factor. From what I have read many people (not all accused "communists" but some top economists) consider the accusations against redlining and the CRA to be a very very small factor, if one at all, not the huge one that you seem to believe.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-12-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:20 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I believe I mentioned it wasn't the only factor. I posted in response to your article (which I assume you find unbiased) that asserts the CRA and redlining was a major factor. From what I have read many people (not all accused "communists" but some top economists) consider the accusations against redlining and the CRA to be a very very small factor, if one at all, not the huge one that you seem to believe.
newf, you must not being even reading what I wrote. Never mind.
