What Warren said....Follow

They were proposing to open an investigation and open the books at Freddie and Fanny to see if anything was going on Joph. As you well know, at that time everything we (and they) were being told was that these securities were perfectly safe and there was nothing to be alarmed about. They just felt like something was wrong because the whole thing looked like too much easy money (and they were right).

It's politics Joph. You pick your battles, even when you are the majority party. Doubly so when you're the majority party and you're already taking a beating in the public's perception of your brand. They decided that expanding an investigation which might not turn anything up wasn't worth the political cost. It's unfortunate, but that's the nature of politics.

Again though, I'm going to put a hell of a lot more blame on the guy who choose that particular issue to use the racist/poor-hater card on, than the guys who choose to drop that issue as a result. Preventing an investigation into those GSEs was really that important to the Dems that he'd do that? Think about that.

Oh. And for the record, Joph's last post was the opposite of an admission that Frank did something wrong. Just in case anyone is keeping score or anything.

I'm sorry, what was that about projections, bubula?

Didn't say that, though in your defense that's probably what you read. Note, I don't blame you. You have a fanatical problem. No, I said that if they didn't pursue the issue, knowing full well that it was bad, then they're due blame as well. I guess it's your policy to shirk responsibility.

You said I was "quick to divert blame to the other party". Which isn't really a correct evaluation of what I said either.

I said that while I do blame the GOP for backing off on the investigation, I place greater blame for the result on Frank. He's the one who created the conflict over that investigation in the first place.

Do you disagree with what I actually said? Yes or no? And if no, then why the hell are you arguing with me?




Sigh. Stop playing semantic games. I've already acknowledged that they are due "some blame". The follow up statement, the one you made a big freaking deal about was that more blame is due Barney Frank. It's interesting that even though I pointed this out directly to you, you've actually tapped danced around that issue.


Do you agree that Frank is more to blame than the GOP? Yes or no?

I didn't know it was a solo game. Sorry for encroaching on your territory.You're trying to divert attention from the issue of your overall fanaticism. We're not talking about a specific instance. We're talking your behavior patterns, encompassing any topic with a decided political environment. Well, maybe not "we" so much as "I." You're doing everything you can to distract from it.

Why? Like you often say, it's irrelevant to our conversation.

No, I was using it as an example of your pattern of behavior. The issue itself was irrelevant, your reaction to it is. But, being the better man, I'll make you a deal. You give me incentive to answer your irrelevant question, and I'll answer it. Or, we can spend the rest of the time of you trying to show me as someone dancing around your "oh so important" political issue when our conversation was actually about your neurological behavior, and me collecting more and more proof of your zealotry and denial. My post count goes up either way.

gbaji, it's not a conservative/liberal thing right now. It's a "you're a fanatic" thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again - you need medication or something. Sometimes you're truly scary.

I'be come up with a theory that all West Coasters, living with the knowledge of the impending Big One, are nihilists which completely deranges their thought processes. They believe in nothing.

Ok. How about: You were the made a big deal out of it. I said that Frank bears more blame than the GOP. You quoted that statement and seemed to argue that by making that claim I somehow nullified my earlier statement that I do place some blame on the GOP for not pushing forward with the investigation.

Let me also remind you that you were the one who said you would respect me if I was willing to place some blame on the GOP. So I did exactly what you said you would respect, but then instead of respecting it, you shifted to talking about my statement about Frank bearing more of the blame.

I think it's more than fair that I ask if you think I'm wrong about this, and why. Because if you disagree, then your shift to that part of my post has some validity to it. If you don't, then it was just you trying to weasel out of your own claim about what you would or would not respect. I would think you'd want to show that you aren't a weasel who makes claims and promises and then doesn't keep them, so I'm honestly surprised that you'd even need encouragement to do this.

Good enough?

Um... Except that Ryan's district didn't get the money they applied for. Did you read the article?

It's also more than a bit unfair to argue that because members of the GOP opposed spending the money in the first place, that they should not allow any of that spending to occur in their states or districts once the decision has already been made. They do also have an obligation to their constituents. Those constituents will have to pay an equal share of the cost of those things, right? There's nothing wrong with opposing doing something entirely, but then also saying that if we're going to do it, I may as well get something out of it so my own constituents don't get screwed.

Imagine there's a group of friends going out to the movies. Some of them want to see the movie on the most expensive Imax/3d screen, but a couple guys think it's too expensive and isn't worth it. They get overruled and so everyone ponies up for the more expensive tickets. Your argument is like saying that having been overruled, and having paid for the more expensive tickets, they should be chastised for wearing the 3d glasses while watching the movie.




Correct.



I have never claimed that he didn't. My argument has always been about the rate of spending increase, not that there was one. Some spending increase can be handled by the economy. Too much spending increase cannot. Bush did the former, Obama did the later. That's why we recovered after the recession in the early 2000s, but have not recovered as well from this most recent recession.




In 1/4th the time. Which means that he's increased spending at double the rate. Math is hard, I know!

You're also making the mistake of looking at the time line in terms of presidential terms and not gaps between/through recessions. The recession started in 2008. We should look at spending increases in response to that recession and not as some general trend. Look at the pattern of spending through the first shaded area. Now look at the spending pattern in the second. Notice anything? There is nearly no change to the overall spending pattern as we went through the first recession on that chart.


I's very different in the second though, right? That's what I'm trying to get people to see. Funny thing is that you dug up a chart that shows exactly what I'm talking about but you didn't see it.



That's the wrong question: Who increased spending at a greater rate? Answer: Obama.



I suppose it "could" be argued that Bush was more responsible, but it would be an incredibly weak argument consisting of imaginary things like unicorns and pixies.



Yes. They both increased spending. So did Clinton, and Bush 41, and Reagain, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and Johnson, and Kennedy, and Eisenhower... Every president has spent more dollars than the president before him. It's completely meaningless to simply point that out and leave it as that. What matters is the rate of spending increase. And Obama's is massively greater that Bush's. Doubly so when we look specifically at "spending in a recession".



They decreased revenue from that 60 year relative high in 2000, yes. But that's also somewhat meaningless. Did they reduce revenue to dangerously low levels? Absolutely not. As I have repeatedly pointed out, revenue just prior to the start of this recession was at 18.5% of GDP. In the last 40 years, there have only been 9 years in which revenue was higher than that.

So historically, revenue was not low as a result of the Bush tax cuts. So if you are attempting to claim that the revenue part of the deficit is because of the Bush tax cuts, you are absolutely provably wrong.



Correct. Revenues drop when a bubble bursts (or some other dramatic shift occurs). This is usually what causes recessions. Let me remind you of a fact that I've already pointed out earlier in this thread: Between 2001 and 2003 revenues dropped by 3.3% of GDP. Between 2007 and 2009 revenues dropped by 3.6% of GDP. The point here being that the relative revenue loss in this recession was similar to that in the previous one. So if you're going to try to blame the current debt crisis on that, you're going to have to look elsewhere.



How do you conclude this? Let me point out that in 2007, the deficit was only $160B dollars. That deficit had been falling for 3 years straight. To say that Obama "inherited a deficit" is a gross misstatement. The deficits which occurred as a result of the housing bubble had nothing to do with the tax rates. It was purely because of losses as a result of the recession (and actions taken during it as well).

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, the revenue losses in this recession, while high historically were similar to those in 2001-2003. Yet, the job market recovered quickly from that one, and hasn't from this one. What is the difference? Spending. The rate of spending is why we aren't recovering. The data is right there in front of you, but you refuse to see it.



You're the one who is conveniently ignoring important facts and coming to conclusions which are completely false. I suppose I turn this forum into a den of lies, but that's because so many people find that in order to argue against the facts I present they have to lie. Maybe you should look to yourself and figure out why you feel you have to do that?

Edited, Aug 26th 2011 2:13pm by gbaji