Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Barney Frank's Meatloaf Impersonation When it Comes to Freedom: Two Out of Three Ain't Bad (But It Ain't Good Enough, Either)
Here's Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) talking with
Conservative News Service (CNS) who, like the Canadian Mounties,
always seem to get their man when it comes interview:
"I would let people gamble on the Internet," Frank said. "I would let adults smoke marijuana; I would let adults do a lot of things, if they choose."
He added: "But allowing them total freedom to take on economic obligations that spill over into the broader society? The individual is not the only one impacted here, when bad decisions get made in the economic sphere, it causes problems."
As Meatloaf documented so long ago, two out of three ain't bad (baby), but in this case, it really hurts worse than Phil Rizzuto's play-by-play in "Paradise By The Dashboard Light."
Frank is nothing less than a trickster figure in American politics, especially for us libertarians who believe that economic and civil liberties are conjoined at the hip, the Chang and Eng of what makes this miserable world worth suffering through. As the comment above suggests, Frank is as good as it gets on most lifestyle issues (indeed, he even had Reason's Radley Balko testify about repealing online gambling bans) and yet he's a real lummox when it comes to economic freedom. His role in the banking and housing crisis is genuinely godawful. Not only did he strongarm mortgage companies to extend more and more credit to shakier and shakier customers, he did so all while denying anything was amiss at the government-sponsored behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that literally underwrote the mortgage mess.
And Frank's at his worst again, now pushing The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009, which critics charge would vastly increase the level of complexity in lending and make it more difficult for low-income borrowers and others to get access to credit.
Frank is not nonplussed by that sort of chatter, or the very idea that all liberties should be considered indivisible.
CNSNews.com asked Frank ... whether Frank's proposal might undercut personal responsibility and the freedom of individuals to make decisions.
"We're not just talking individual responsibility," Rep. Frank answered. "We have a world-wide economic crisis now, because of this. If it were purely individual responsibility, OK, that's why I disagree with the ranking member."
That, of course, is an argument constantly thrown against drug-taking and gambling (what about the children of addicts, etc.).
If we do in fact have a worldwide economic crisis (as opposed to a recession), it's clearly less because of a surfeit of "total freedom to take on economic obligations" by individuals and more about governments' inability either to leave markets alone in the first place or step aside when bad actors have to pay their own bills (including governments!).
If only Barney Frank and others like him in Congress would think their positions through a bit more and arrive at a consistent, and consistently libertarian, POV when it comes to recognizing that the right to smoke pot or play online strip poker means precious little without the economic freedom that helps you earn the money to buy pot or wager. If only...
In the meantime, here's Meatloaf ripping "Like a Bat Out of Hell" circa 1977, a simpler time when the Misery Index was busting out all over like, well, Meatloaf from his jeans:
|4.24.09 @ 1:02PM|#
But allowing them total freedom to take on economic
obligations that spill over into the broader society?
The Red Queen Barney wants to send federal troops to
disband the California State Legislature?
JP|4.24.09 @ 1:09PM|#
Frank is as good as it gets on most lifestyle issues ... and
yet he's a real lummox when it comes to economic
freedom.
Isn't that the problem with
left-liberalism/progressivism as a whole?
Stretch Armstrong|4.24.09 @ 1:09PM|#
Yo, fuck Barney Frank. If I ever see that fat waste of life out
on the street, I'm throwing rocks. He's such a great argument FOR
torture.
Christ on a cracker, I hate that man.
JP|4.24.09 @ 1:11PM|#
Nick Gillespie has become rantastic!
I like angry Nick. Outrage seems to stimulate his creativity.
(Though I think he may have used "nonplussed" incorrectly.)
|4.24.09 @ 1:14PM|#
For the record, I believe Chang and Eng were joined at the liver, but your point still applies.
|4.24.09 @ 1:14PM|#
God, I hate Meatloaf (and Barney Frank). The best thing Meatloaf
ever did was get shot in the head in Fight Club.
"In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name!"
High Every Body|4.24.09 @ 1:23PM|#
The best thing Meatloaf ever did was get shot in the head in
Fight Club.
I liked it when he killed a car.
High Every Body|4.24.09 @ 1:25PM|#
Nick,
Keep on rantin'!
Also, love the cute pic of Amy Aklon in the left margin ads.
Brett Stevens|4.24.09 @ 1:28PM|#
economic and civil liberties are conjoined at the
hip
Neither will save you if your nation collapses into mass revolution
as happened in Russia and France.
confused guy in the back row|4.24.09 @ 1:29PM|#
I'm missing something.
If he's bad because:
Not only did he strongarm mortgage companies to extend more and
more credit to shakier and shakier customers
but he's also bad because:
pushing The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of
2009, which critics charge would vastly increase the level of
complexity in lending and make it more difficult for low-income
borrowers and others to get access to credit
What exactly should he be doing?
|4.24.09 @ 1:30PM|#
Also, love the cute pic of Amy Aklon in the left margin
ads.
You have now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, HEB, that you are
insane. I always suspected it.
jtuf|4.24.09 @ 1:32PM|#
Drug War Update: This Pro-Legalization youtube video came out today. Apparently there's a phone petition drive going arround to legalize marijuana. I don't know if it is the cause, but Senator Menendez's phone line and the White House phone line were both beyoung capacity when I tried to call.
|4.24.09 @ 1:34PM|#
Does anyone know how much money Phil Rizzuto has received in royalties for Paradise By the Dashboard Light?
Orange Line Special|4.24.09 @ 1:35PM|#
Here's the series title: "Nick Gillespie, Libertarian Paper
Tiger". Each week, Gillespie rails against some politician, while a
cutaway shows the politician laughing over how nothing Gillespie
rants about will have any sort of impact on their career.
If Reason weren't just a paper tiger more interested in sucking up
to power instead of fighting it, they'd do something like this.
We all know what would happen if Reason tried to do something like
that: they'd make JoeKlein look like EliotNess.
jester|4.24.09 @ 1:38PM|#
Barney Frank is a very bad meatloaf recipe. At least eight or
nine entries away from placing in just about any county fair just
about anywhere in our country.
Folks don't exactly eat meatloaf in Barn(acl)ey Land. They prefer
Shillfish.
Adderall Apocalypse|4.24.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Hey, Nick. Wrong link on The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009. You just re-linked to the Meat Loaf songfacts page.
The Angry Optimist|4.24.09 @ 1:47PM|#
J sub - probably just a one-off fee, but he did get a gold record for the album's success.
|4.24.09 @ 1:48PM|#
back row dude, how bout he just stay the hell out of something
he obviously has no understanding of?
I wouldn't trust Frank to balance my checkbook, much less help me
decide which mortgage product I should get.
short, fat bastard|4.24.09 @ 1:49PM|#
Meatloaf gave hope to all of us folks of rotund proportions that
we could maybe, like posibly, have sex with gorgeous women.
I shall always have a tender spot if my heart for Meat.
jester|4.24.09 @ 1:50PM|#
Goddam Orange Line Special,
You sound like Gillespie's jilted high pulp lover. As if
libertarian ranting will go anywhere.
Me, I just upload my videos to youtube. Check this recent post.
Gigawagaloogazabillions of hits! Fuck AppleGillesPie. Get it? Har,
Har, Gilles is a French name. I knew it! Fuckin' froggy
faker.
OK...drum roll...here is the link:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShTm8MnUAjo
LoneWacko, You Erect my Offense,
You seely beetch
jtuf|4.24.09 @ 1:52PM|#
There is some question about the legitimacy of the 973 polling phone number from the youtube video I linked to, however even if you don't call the 973 number, at least call your reps in DC. Here are the White House number (202-456-1111) and the Capital Hill number (202 - 224-3121). You can verify them at the White House and Congressional websites.
Jordan|4.24.09 @ 1:55PM|#
What exactly should he be doing?
How about letting lendors and their customers arrange their own
goddamn affairs?
The Extispicator|4.24.09 @ 1:56PM|#
I recall my older brother buying Bat Out of Hell based solely on the cover art and name. To this day he will say he has never felt more ripped off. No truth in advertising there.
|4.24.09 @ 1:57PM|#
Just once, I'd like to hear an interviewer on The
NewsHour or some other talking heads gabfest let loose on
Fwank, thusly:
Excuse me, Representative Frank, but this is not a high school debate tournament, and talking louder and faster than the other participants does not entitle you to the lion's share of the time. That is the tactic of the intellectual bully, and one we don't allow on this program. Keep it up and I'll just have our engineers dial down the volume on your microphone until it's time for you to respond.
In H.S. debate it was known as the "spread offense/defense" - make
so many points that your opponent can't possibly answer them all in
the time allotted. Fwank uses it all the time, even though he is
prone to its often fatal flaw. A poor spread debater can speak so
fast that the points he thinks he's making aren't absorbed by the
judge or audience. Combine breaking the audio speed limit with a
speech impediment, such as Fwank's almost sterotypical lisp, and
unless your judge is an ex-debater used to "listening fast," you
just may lose.
Mind you, I am not a fan of the O'Reilly trick of potting down
anybody who disagrees with the moderator just as they are making a
telling point, but Bawney seems to think that everyone in the media
to the right of Jim Hightower is about to kill his mike.
Kevin
Wicks Cherrycoke|4.24.09 @ 2:15PM|#
Why do you guys take the bait when a leftist like Frank starts talking about decriminalizing pot or legalizing online gambling? He's all for it, until someone actually does it. Then who do you think will be the first in line to punish the "evil wealthy corporations" who are "exploting" the "gambling and substance addictions" of The People...just like the evil banks "misled" The People into borrowing from them?
|4.24.09 @ 2:22PM|#
What exactly should he be doing?
He could start by acknowledging the efficiency (and historical
success) of willing-buyer/willing-seller capitalism.
If he wants to control the terms on which money is borrowed and
lent, he should open his own goddam bank, and loan HIS money, not
mine.
|4.24.09 @ 2:42PM|#
He added: "But allowing them total freedom to take on
economic obligations that spill over into the broader society? The
individual is not the only one impacted here, when bad decisions
get made in the economic sphere, it causes problems."
This can be used to justify any intervention in private life as
well. There are few personal choices that do not have some kind of
economic effect. The health-care/lifestyle intersection is a case
in point that has been discussed often before.
It's just a short step from there to porn or teen pregnancy.
This is like the externalities debate we were having in another
thread. If you start including negative impacts on your life from
changes in people's behavior (people buying houses, people not
buying houses), then you're basically arguing that you've got some
sort of ownership right over people's status quo economic behavior.
I.e. "My livelihood is dependent on home prices rising. If home
prices fall because of a rise in forclosures, thats a negative
externality, therefore I'm entitled to control other peoples
home-buying behavior - such as loan terms - to protect my
livelihood."
It's screwed up. You can't own consumer choice patterns.
Xeones|4.24.09 @ 2:44PM|#
Shut the fuck up, LoneWacko.
Shut the fuck up, Barney Frank, you gigantic boil in the
already-festering armpit that is the Capitol.
Shut the fuck up, all you Meatloaf haters. He would do anything for
love, but he won't... do... that. But you would,
assholes.
|4.24.09 @ 2:54PM|#
He would do anything for love, but he won't... do...
that.
I've always assumed Mr. Loaf was talking about pegging.
Or at least Chris Kelly hopes so. He likes 'em meaty.
High Every Body|4.24.09 @ 2:55PM|#
No new article in over two hours? What are they doing on Conn. Ave, drawing the print edition by hand?
Kyle Jordan|4.24.09 @ 3:00PM|#
"No new article in over two hours? What are they doing on Conn.
Ave, drawing the print edition by hand?"
Well, it is Friday and Fridays tend to be a bit slower. I do
somewhat agree with you though. Fuckers need to kick it up a notch,
Emeril style.
alan|4.24.09 @ 3:03PM|#
Frank's comment only needs one small change to be
accurate:
But allowing Bananke and Paulson total freedom
to take on economic obligations that spill over into the broader
society? These individuals are not the only one
impacted here, when bad decisions get made in the economic sphere,
it causes problems.
FTFY, Barney.
JB|4.24.09 @ 3:04PM|#
I look forward to the day someone takes a baseball bat to Barney Frank's face. I hope they videotape it too.
|4.24.09 @ 3:07PM|#
Orange Line Special | April 24, 2009, 1:35pm | #
Here's the series title: "Nick Gillespie, Libertarian Paper
Tiger".
much better than "Lonewacko, whateverthefuckian self-published
pussy cat with a shitty website"
Shut the fuck up.
alan|4.24.09 @ 3:14PM|#
Yeah, Bat Out Of Hell was a total rip, you expect metal from
that album cover but what you get is the most dorky glee club
shlock singing imaginable.
I remember my older brother had this, Cooper's Killers, and Cat
Scratch Fever on 8 Track. Guess which one of the three got tossed
out of the Trans Am?
|4.24.09 @ 3:16PM|#
I take issue with that demotivator.. Wouldn't Barney Frank have been in bed with Freddie Mac?
JP|4.24.09 @ 3:19PM|#
No new article in over two hours? What are they doing on
Conn. Ave, drawing the print edition by hand?
Staff meeting.
|4.24.09 @ 3:21PM|#
It takes balls to argue that financial markets should be
unregulated right now.
Or a case of being the victim of right-wing propaganda regarding
Rep. Frank's role in the financial crisis.
|4.24.09 @ 3:30PM|#
It takes ignorance to blame the financial mess on an unregulated financial industry.
Barney|4.24.09 @ 3:30PM|#
You tell 'em, Tony! Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were financially sound and doing the work of the people until some right winger numbskulls started sniffing around and criticizing their mission.
kinnath|4.24.09 @ 3:30PM|#
It takes balls to argue that financial markets should be
unregulated right now.
It takes balls to argue that one of the most heavily regulated
industries in the western economy failed because we didn't have
enough regulations.
It takes monster balles to claim that the best way to avoid crony
capitalism where regulated industries flood both political parties
with campaign cash to get more favorable regulation is by having
the government take an owernship stake in the companies that make
those compaign contributions to the very people that both own it
and regulate it.
|4.24.09 @ 3:30PM|#
Say what you will, but Meatloaf has a great set of pipes. And Jim Steinman's songs, while repetetive, are ear candy.
|4.24.09 @ 3:35PM|#
It takes even more monster balls, for the person who is responsible for the tinkering that led to the disaster to make the claim that more tinkering is what we need, and if only he'd been aloud to tinker more, everything would still be peachy. Good fucking grief.
engineer|4.24.09 @ 3:38PM|#
The problem is that he's murdering the concept of externalities. Externalities occur when there are costs imposed on third parties not associated with either of the two contracting parties in an association. TWO PEOPLE SIGNING A MORTGAGE CONTRACT, WHILE ONE OF THEM CANNOT PAY THE CONTRACT AND IS BEING STUPID, IS *NOT* AN EXTERNALITY!
|4.24.09 @ 3:40PM|#
You hold onto the "Fannie and Freddie caused the crisis" trope like a security blanket. What proof do you have? Most of the bad loans were not made through Fannie and Freddie.
alan|4.24.09 @ 3:42PM|#
Say what you will, but Meatloaf has a great set of pipes.
And Jim Steinman's songs, while repetetive, are ear
candy.
Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, and I think he is a vocal
pyromaniac, but the music ain't my cup of tea.
|4.24.09 @ 3:44PM|#
I take issue with that demotivator.. Wouldn't Barney Frank
have been in bed with Freddie Mac?
Fannie Mae was born into this world Franklin Michael. Modern
science took care of the rest. There's no conflict of interest here
on Bawneys end!
Paul|4.24.09 @ 3:44PM|#
If only Barney Frank and others like him in Congress would
think their positions through a bit more and arrive at a
consistent, and consistently libertarian, POV when it comes to
recognizing that the right to smoke pot or play online strip poker
means precious little without the economic freedom
ChicagoTom referred to this as 'compartmentalization'. I thank him
for that.
Barney|4.24.09 @ 3:47PM|#
That's right, tell these assholes, Tony! Freddie and Fannie had nothin' to do with this. Nothing! These are public institutions so you can't consider it a bailout. These are investments we are making in them for the good of the people.
Paul|4.24.09 @ 3:50PM|#
You hold onto the "Fannie and Freddie caused the crisis"
trope like a security blanket. What proof do you have? Most of the
bad loans were not made through Fannie and Freddie.
I love this. If Freddie and Fannie didn't make any bad loans, what
happed to those entities? Why the crisis? If all the paper that
Freddie and Fannie held was solid, then they're financially sound,
no?
No, you keep suckin' on that Freddie and Fannie binky.
Here's an article from fucking 2004... 2004!
on Fannie. But yeah, nothing to see here, move along.
Barney|4.24.09 @ 3:51PM|#
franglo | April 24, 2009, 3:49pm | #
Ha ha, I get it. Barney Frank is a gay.
People think I come across as angry, but that is just a by product
of doing my job effectively. I am actually quite a happy guy.
Paul|4.24.09 @ 3:52PM|#
Say what you will, but Meatloaf has a great set of
pipes.
Which he's used to parlay one album-- ONE ALBUM fer chrissakes, for
something like 50 years. What's next, Bat Out of Hell XXVIII, the
Revenge of Bat Out of Hell?!!
|4.24.09 @ 3:57PM|#
Hey Paul, did you ever consider taht Fannie and Freddie went under because their borrowers were poor and were hit the hardest by teh financial crisis caused by the large unregulated banks?
alan|4.24.09 @ 4:02PM|#
This
Hey Paul, did you ever consider taht Fannie and Freddie went
under because their borrowers were poor and were hit the hardest by
teh financial crisis caused by the large unregulated
banks?
Contradicts,
You hold onto the "Fannie and Freddie caused the crisis" trope like
a security blanket. What proof do you have? Most of the bad loans
were not made through Fannie and Freddie.
So, you are now saying FM&FM defaults are a part of the
equation?
kinnath|4.24.09 @ 4:03PM|#
Hey Paul, did you ever consider taht Fannie and Freddie went
under because their borrowers were poor and were hit the hardest by
teh financial crisis caused by the large unregulated
banks?
No, a very, very large percentage of the people in trouble are/were
middle to upper-middle class homeowners who borrowed far more than
they could afford to pay back because rising home prices would
allow them to sell of at in the future with a substantial financial
gain.
Unfortunately, home prices turned south and they are/were
fucked.
You need to go read the archives where joe valiantly defended
low-income borrowers who were not the real culprits in the
fiasco.
|4.24.09 @ 4:06PM|#
alan,
Ask the spoof troll. This is only my second actual post.
And I'm starting to feel that lack of motivation to argue that
comes with a Friday afternoon.
Guy Who Was Spoofing Tony|4.24.09 @ 4:08PM|#
Okay, I admit it, I just wanted to play Devil's Advocate and if my questions made me look like an utter tool, I figured I would use the handle of somebody who's already an utter tool.
Paul|4.24.09 @ 4:09PM|#
Hey Paul, did you ever consider taht Fannie and Freddie went
under because their borrowers were poor and were hit the hardest by
teh financial crisis caused by the large unregulated
banks?
But the loans were good. They were solid.
Little timetable shifting? Financial crisis caused good loans to go
bad. Or was it bad loans that caused the crisis? I'm so
confrused.
None of this is to mention that a lot of the initial bad loans were
upper-middle class yuppies who just had to have the
super-cute craftsman with high ceilings and wooden floors in the
quaint, walkable neighborhood. And they were willing to take a loan
on any terms to get it.
My vote is still bad loans causing the crisis. Fannie and Freddie
didn't make all the bad loans, they just bought the paper
that other people made. So Fannie and Freddie were mere dupes of
the unfettered free market. Fooled by the cruel and capitalistic
evil-doers. Innocent babes in the woods of the financial
markets.
Read that article...from 2004! Freddie and Fannie were committing
fraud.
Your attempt to cover that up and thus paint Freddie and Fannie as
unwitting victims of the crisis is dubious, to say the least.
GWWST|4.24.09 @ 4:10PM|#
But then again, the crap I posted *was* gleaned from past joe, MNG, Chad, or Tony posts.
Guy who SPOOFED Tony|4.24.09 @ 4:13PM|#
Paul, seriously, even though I posted exactly what Tony would
post whenever confronted with the Fannie and Freddie point, the two
posts were not actually Tony's posts from today.
Besides, it's unproductive to focus on Fannie and Freddie. Federal
Reserve. Arguably the agency of the federal government with the
most influence over the economy, and with the most capacity to
encourage a problem on the scale of the housing bubble.
|4.24.09 @ 4:14PM|#
But to the extent that FMx2 were responsible for the financial
crisis, it was because of a lack of regulation--which Rep. Frank
himself tried and failed to pass until 2007 because of Republican
majorities and a president who opposed them.
I don't see how you can have this both ways.
Spoof troll guy|4.24.09 @ 4:16PM|#
"Well that suck. Spoof troll, go fuck yersef."
Oh, come on, it's not like I had Tony act as big of an ass as he
often does. In reality, I think my spoof was an improvement on the
actual model. Less full of "you guys suck" asides, which form
roughly half of all Tony posts.
|4.24.09 @ 4:17PM|#
I don't think libertarians suck. I just wish they'd learn a
little practicality. Rep. Frank is better than just about every
Republican on certain issues you guys champion, so why not
celebrate?
He is a leftwing liberal, so it's silly to be surprised that he's
in favor of tighter financial regulations.
engineer|4.24.09 @ 4:18PM|#
"But to the extent that FMx2 were responsible for the financial
crisis, it was because of a lack of regulation"
Really, it had nothing to do with the government's guarantee to
back the loans FM*2 made? Nothing at all?
engineer|4.24.09 @ 4:19PM|#
"Rep. Frank is better than just about every Republican on
certain issues you guys champion, so why not celebrate?"
Gee, he's better on legalizing marijuana and online gambling, both
of which I have no interest in, and terrible on not running up
deficits and not confiscating a large portion of my income, which I
have a great deal of interest in. Yeah, lots of reason to
celebrate.
Glistening Lamb\'s Marrow|4.24.09 @ 4:20PM|#
"Jim Hightower"
Jim Hightower is quite possibly the most ignorant human ever.
alan|4.24.09 @ 4:20PM|#
Besides, it's unproductive to focus on Fannie and Freddie.
Federal Reserve. Arguably the agency of the federal government with
the most influence over the economy, and with the most capacity to
encourage a problem on the scale of the housing bubble.
Yes, and I would add the forensics point to Paulson screwing up the
Washington Mutual buyout, but Frank being the subject of the
thread, obviously, he being their protector, the role of Freddie
and Fannie in this deserves a shout out.
Kinnath, joe made a decent defense of the CRA as at best being a
minimal culprit in this which I too felt was a weak argument coming
from some quarters, but the other arguments on Fannnie and Freddie
didn't really fly.
engineer|4.24.09 @ 4:21PM|#
I mean, seriously, stop me before I suffer a stroke from the
euphoria.
Honestly, I think the only member of Congress who's not mostly or
completely full of it is Ron Paul. And I also think he's a little
nuts.
|4.24.09 @ 4:23PM|#
So, Guy who spoofed...
Are you maybe leaning towards the idea that Federal Reserve
manipulated all of this while an already unpopular president would
take the blame from the left and a dumbass Congress would take the
blame from the right and put one of their own in place at Treasury
with the in-over-his-head-just-wanted-to-be-president so they could
own teh world?
Eh, why not? We're all fucked anyway. So...
I agree! Kill the Fed bastards!
engineer|4.24.09 @ 4:24PM|#
Plus, Tony, how long before a bunch of people go broke from online gambling and Frank leads the charge against "teh evul corporashunz who exploited online gambling FOR THEIR OWN GAIN, OMG!"
|4.24.09 @ 4:24PM|#
engineer,
I'm fully aware you're an anti-tax zealot to the exclusion of
pretty much everything else. I'm sure others around here are happy
that a prominent congressman is vocal about his support for
legalized weed.
The Guy Who Spoofed|4.24.09 @ 4:25PM|#
Nick,
No, I think the Federal Reserve was operating under the erroneous
assumption that they could maintain an economic boom forever
through low interest rates. No nefarious purposes, just
shortsightedness.
|4.24.09 @ 4:26PM|#
Tony, has Frank ever written legislation to allow people to gamble online or do drugs legally? Just because he would vote for something, doesn't make him good. He has to actually do something good, unlike what he actually DOES in Congress (economic meddling) which is all bad all the time.
|4.24.09 @ 4:26PM|#
I don't think libertarians suck. I just wish they'd learn a
little practicality. Rep. Frank is better than just about every
Republican on certain issues you guys champion, so why not
celebrate?
I would if he were the drug czar, but as he's on the banking
committee, his opinions (which I disagree with) on banking issues
carry disproportionate weight.
But to the extent that FMx2 were responsible for the financial
crisis, it was because of a lack of regulation--which Rep. Frank
himself tried and failed to pass until 2007 because of Republican
majorities and a president who opposed them.
Um, that's exactly what we dispute, RealTony: that "lack of
regulation" is responsible. In fact, I claim that
excessive regulation in the form of various initiatives to
promote home ownership were ultimately responsible for the housing
bubble. FMx2 were the conduits by which this regulation was
enacted. Barney INSISTS that this has nothing to do with it - even
as people from his own party (like that brave kid from Harvard last
week) call him out on his nonsense.
|4.24.09 @ 4:27PM|#
Come on, Guy. Mine was way more fun. And I was giving you all the credit. Embrace the Conspiracy!
engineer|4.24.09 @ 4:31PM|#
Tony, I am not anti-tax zealot "to the exclusion of everything
else". I would prefer a flat tax. I would even be happy to have
some of the burden shifted to carbon taxes (shifted, not created as
an additional burden) which you should actually agree with, given
your monomaniacal focus on AGW.
That said, taxes aren't the only issue. An irrational, pro-cyclical
monetary policy also strikes me as an important issue, and one that
receives far less attention that it should. And I consider the drug
war an absurd waste of money. However, in the grand scheme of
stupid things the government does that anger me, not being able to
ever smoke pot ranks fairly low.
Lord Jubjub|4.24.09 @ 4:31PM|#
Supposedly FMx2 did not have a government guarantee. But everyone knew that Frank, Dodd, and other congresscritters would not allow FMx2 to fail.
|4.24.09 @ 4:32PM|#
No, I think the Federal Reserve was operating under the
erroneous assumption that they could maintain an economic boom
forever through low interest rates. No nefarious purposes, just
shortsightedness.
I'll agree that the Fed kept rates to low, to long. But that's not
the whole story. When the Fed raised rates, long rates (which the
fed can't manipulate, and on which mortgage rates are based) stayed
low. Remember Greenspan's "conundrum"? The reason for this is
partly global economic imbalances (China's massive product
oversupply and currency devaluation) and partly crap like FMx2
keeping risk spreads artificially low at the behest of people like
Barney Frank (and Bush!)
|4.24.09 @ 4:32PM|#
An irrational, pro-cyclical monetary policy also strikes me
as an important issue, and one that receives far less attention
that it should.
cite please.
engineer|4.24.09 @ 4:33PM|#
"Barney INSISTS that this has nothing to do with it - even as
people from his own party (like that brave kid from Harvard last
week)"
There's a brave kid from Harvard? Could I have a link?
|4.24.09 @ 4:34PM|#
FMx2 were part of the equation, but focusing on their role to
the exclusion of other more important causes is nothing but part of
the discredited GOP attempt to shift blame to poor people.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall, the failure of the SEC to do its job,
a lax Fed and very low interest rates, and bogus debt assessments
by ratings agencies are the proximate causes of the crisis. FMx2
was involved to the extent that it was not regulated properly.
Hence, the cause was a lack of regulation.
alan|4.24.09 @ 4:36PM|#
Thanks domoarrigato,
For anyone to state that Frank tried to reign in FM&FM is
glaringly dishonest. The man who infamously stated, "These two
entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of
crisis?" I was going to go find some old Boston Globe links for
tony to chew on, but I think you saved me the trouble.
Glistening Lamb\'s Marrow|4.24.09 @ 4:36PM|#
"a problem on the scale of the housing bubble."
Here's what happened.
The dot.com bust made everyone ask, "Jesus! Where am I gonna
invest? Oh, I know, real estate. It always appreciates!"
But of course it didn't.
So now everyone asks, "Jesus! Where am I gonna invest now??? Oh, I
know, GOLD!!! It always appreciates! And it's a great hedge against
inflation!!!"
Gold is the next one to burst.
And after that, Municipal Bonds, which is where the busted gold
money will go.
engineer|4.24.09 @ 4:38PM|#
Do I have to? I was up all night finishing my term paper, and I don't feel like citing another damn thing.
|4.24.09 @ 4:38PM|#
I mean heap scorn on FMx2 all you want, but it's dishonest not to also implicate, say, the mortgage industry which not irrelevantly bankrolled a lot Republican campaigns.
Craig|4.24.09 @ 4:40PM|#
If only Frank would listen seriously to the senior Republican on
his own committee once in a while, instead of rolling his eyes and
reflexively dismissing everything Ron Paul says.
Or go back and read the transcripts of their hearings and wait for
the light bulb to go on about who saw all of this coming....
engineer|4.24.09 @ 4:43PM|#
Craig,
Tony says we're not supposed to talk about that. Remember, Barney
Frank is the prescient hero who tried to stop all this before it
became a problem and is trying to save us all from the evul free
market fundamentalists!
|4.24.09 @ 4:43PM|#
I don't think libertarians suck. I just wish they'd learn a
little practicality.
Yeah, right.
Believing that politicians put aside their own personal and
political goals to promote the interests of the little guy is a
vastly more practical way of looking at things.
|4.24.09 @ 4:44PM|#
I mean heap scorn on FMx2 all you want, but it's dishonest
not to also implicate, say, the mortgage industry which not
irrelevantly bankrolled a lot Republican campaigns.
If you think I am shilling for the GOP you are grossly mistaken.
Buuut, the mortgage industry donated a lot to Deomcrats too. People
who benefit from rent seeking like to play both sides of the field,
just in case. And I did mention Bush upthread.
Glistening Lamb's Marrow,
Nope, the bubbles are deflated for now, we have seen too much
collective destruction of balance sheet to get another bubble just
now. I agree gold is a bubble - but you see that the bubble flowed
into sucessively smaller markets as time went on: first stocks,
then housing, then oil, then gold. the return of beanie babies is
next, but no one will notice.
Glistening Lamb\'s Marrow|4.24.09 @ 4:45PM|#
"I mean heap scorn on FMx2 all you want, but it's dishonest not
to also implicate, say, the mortgage industry which not
irrelevantly bankrolled a lot Republican campaigns."
[Citation Needed]
Glistening Lamb\'s Marrow|4.24.09 @ 4:46PM|#
"Nope, the bubbles are deflated for now, we have seen too much
collective destruction of balance sheet to get another bubble just
now. I agree gold is a bubble - but you see that the bubble flowed
into sucessively smaller markets as time went on: first stocks,
then housing, then oil, then gold. the return of beanie babies is
next, but no one will notice."
Bubbles is bubbles.
|4.24.09 @ 4:48PM|#
If you think I am shilling for the GOP you are grossly
mistaken. Buuut, the mortgage industry donated a lot to Deomcrats
too. People who benefit from rent seeking like to play both sides
of the field, just in case. And I did mention Bush
upthread.
Of course this is true, but what was the mortgage industry seeking
in return? And who were the ones willing to give it to them?
There's no way you can get around the fact that, generally
speaking, a lack of regulation was the culprit here. You're
admitting as much when you implicate FMx2.
|4.24.09 @ 4:49PM|#
it's dishonest not to also implicate, say, the mortgage
industry which not irrelevantly bankrolled a lot Republican
campaigns.
It's a good thing Chris Dodd never took any money from the evil
predatory lending cabal.
engineer|4.24.09 @ 4:52PM|#
"Of course this is true, but what was the mortgage industry
seeking in return? And who were the ones willing to give it to
them?"
Ooh Ooh! Bailout! Memememememememe!
alan|4.24.09 @ 4:54PM|#
There's no way you can get around the fact that, generally
speaking, a lack of regulation was the culprit here. You're
admitting as much when you implicate FMx2.
Eh? Come again?
FM&FM are Oskar Lange type creations designed to do mimic what
private parties do through a beauracratic process instead of an
entreprenual one, but without the risk involved. They are the
managerial state you advocate.
|4.24.09 @ 4:55PM|#
Tony, these are you standard DNC talking points:
FMx2 were part of the equation, but focusing on their role to
the exclusion of other more important causes is nothing but part of
the discredited GOP attempt to shift blame to poor
people.
Wrong, Blaming Fmx2 is not blaming "poor people" - it's blaming
those who pander to poor people to advance their political careers.
By hiding behind the skirts of the poor, you enable this perverse
and foul behavior.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall
If anything, the repeal of GS helped create institutions that were
better able to withstand the downturn. The banks that actually got
bankrupted (LEH, GS, AIG sort of) were not impacted by the
repeal.
the failure of the SEC to do its job,
This is proof that regulation doesn't work, not that we need more
of it. I have worked with the SEC first hand, they are the best
buffoons a government salary and work ethic can buy.
a lax Fed
agreed between Q1 2003 and Q3 2004
and very low interest rates,
China, FMx2 partly to blame - since I assume you mean long term
rates
and bogus debt assessments by ratings agencies
Or how about excessive regulatory based reliance on said debt
ratings. If not for that, debt ratings would be nothing more than
an opinion, asshole not included.
FMx2 was involved to the extent that it was not regulated
properly. Hence, the cause was a lack of regulation.
Except that it's very existence, and subsequent use as a tool to
manipulate is a result of government meddling.
So, you're basically 170 degrees off.
Kunal|4.24.09 @ 4:57PM|#
I've always assumed Mr. Loaf was talking about
pegging.
Or at least Chris Kelly hopes so. He likes 'em meaty.
Dear Sugarfree,
I don't think "pegging" means what you think it means.
PS: Noob!
|4.24.09 @ 4:58PM|#
a lack of regulation was the culprit here.
Please: what regulation, Glass Steagal is irrelevant and was
repealed by Clinton anyway. What magic regulation would you impose
that would have stopped this - all else being held equal?
|4.24.09 @ 4:58PM|#
Dear Sugarfree,
I don't think "pegging" means what you think it means.
PS: Noob!
Oh dear, this could get interesting...
alan|4.24.09 @ 5:04PM|#
and bogus debt assessments by ratings agencies
Why would you not give anything with a government guarantee
attached anything less than a AAA rating when the rating is an
assessment of risk for the investing party, and not society in
general?
|4.24.09 @ 5:05PM|#
" Glass Steagal is irrelevant and was repealed by Clinton
anyway"
id also point out that the US was the esception to the rule with
Glass Steagal. Every other major industrialized nation has allowed
merging of finanical industries. Many of them even allow
non-financial companies to merge with industrial ones. And in all
cases, this has never happened anywhere else before.
Plus anyone who points to removing Glass Steagal as the culprit
needs to explain why and how. They just cant say "ha a
deregulation... i win!" How did allowing banks and insurance
companies to merge possibly cuse this mess?
|4.24.09 @ 5:07PM|#
it has far more to do with lose monetary policy from the fed, mixed with massive foreign capital inflows and then channeled into housing via an overleveraging fannie and freddie. That how the bubble formed and its popping is why we have this mess.
|4.24.09 @ 5:07PM|#
Why would you not give anything with a government guarantee
attached anything less than a AAA rating when the rating is an
assessment of risk for the investing party, and not society in
general?
Lots of AAA CDO's achieved that status through
over-collateralization that turned out not to be "over enough", bad
default assumptions, and insurance wrappers from companies that
also did not have government guarantees. So this is somewhat
misleading.
|4.24.09 @ 5:09PM|#
Please: what regulation, Glass Steagal is irrelevant and was
repealed by Clinton anyway. What magic regulation would you impose
that would have stopped this - all else being held
equal?
I think it's manifest that Glass-Steagal was not irrelevant. Notice
the lack of financial crises on this scale between the great
depression and now.
There's plenty of evil in the GOP on other issues that I'm not
gonna lay all the blame at their feet. Clinton was a culprit the
Reagan revolution in too many ways, in my opinion (not that he had
much choice).
Banks should never have been allowed to engage in the high-risk
speculation that led to the crisis. This speculation was in no way
encouraged by too much regulation, but rather an innovation of a
too-unchecked marketplace.
|4.24.09 @ 5:10PM|#
How did allowing commercial banks and
insurance companies investment banks
to merge possibly cuse this mess?
Sorry to pick nits...
|4.24.09 @ 5:12PM|#
This speculation was in no way encouraged by too much
regulation, but rather an innovation of a too-unchecked
marketplace.
Well, I've listed at least one way in which it was encouraged by
regulation - so just saying the opposite is kind of repetative.
Care to try and refute my assertion?
|4.24.09 @ 5:13PM|#
I have to go start my weekend, but I'll check back on you Tony, and see if you have anything substantive to add to this apart for DNC talking points.
|4.24.09 @ 5:13PM|#
Notice the lack of financial crises on this scale between the great depression and now.
|4.24.09 @ 5:15PM|#
Ironic that the democrats want to let 17 year olds get abortions or the morning after pill without a parent's consent, but if you want a credit card and you are under 21, you have to have parental consent?????
|4.24.09 @ 5:21PM|#
"Banks should never have been allowed to engage in the high-risk
speculation"
But thats the problem tony... no one thought mortgages were "high
risk", inluding your government overseers who you put so much trust
in regulating correctly. In fact the Government fo years were
pushing more mortgages in every which way.
Also, you seem to not understand what repealling Glass-Steagle did.
In no way did Glass Steagle prevent anyone from "higher risk
speculation." In fact most of the institutions that went belly up,
Countrywide, Indymac, WaMu were not effected by removing glass
steagle at all. They were just banks. And Glass Steagle in no way
prevented bad loans or over levergage of institutions.
Plus, the US was the exception to the rule. Most countries have
always allowed the merging of investment banking, commerical
banking and insurance, and they have never had such a crisis. Other
then mere correlation, what is the logical argument for how
reppealing Glass Steagle led to this crisis? Please spell it out to
me. I have yet to ever hear anyone explain this dynamic.
Paleo Pat|4.24.09 @ 5:26PM|#
So, you stoop to the level of the Democrats and make fat jokes
to prove your point?
Novel.... Simplistic, but quite novel.
....and by the way; on the behalf of fat people everywhere:
Fuck you. Seriously... fuck you. You skinny bastards have zero
clue.
Glistening Lamb\'s Marrow|4.24.09 @ 5:26PM|#
"Ironic that the democrats want to let 17 year olds get
abortions or the morning after pill without a parent's consent, but
if you want a credit card and you are under 21, you have to have
parental consent?????"
That makes perfect sense. Abortion is legal. A 17-year-old girl has
reproductive rights. Simple as that.
But give her a credit card and she'll just use it to charge a bunch
of slutty clothes from American Apparel, a case of wine via the
Internet, a room at the Hilton, and then get knocked up all over
again.
It's not that difficult to understand, people.
|4.24.09 @ 5:47PM|#
For those of you who don't get the reference in the picture, Frank's boyfriend of 10+ years was Herb Moses, a '90s Fannie Mae executive who helped loosen lending restrictions. But don't worry: Frank assured everyone there was no conflict of interest. What a relief!
JP|4.24.09 @ 5:51PM|#
Thanks, Papaya. I was wondering what the "literally" referred
to.
OT - my favorite fake motivational poster hier.
Kunal|4.24.09 @ 6:34PM|#
I think it's manifest that Glass-Steagal was not irrelevant.
Notice the lack of financial crises on this scale between the great
depression and now.
Tony is absolutely right. Between 1933 and 1999, the Glass Steagal
Act kept the US safe from financial crises, pirate attacks, Global
Warming and many other perils besides.
|4.24.09 @ 7:01PM|#
What exactly should he be doing?
Nothing. Nothing at all. He's done enough damage to this country
already.
hmm|4.24.09 @ 7:02PM|#
I think it's manifest that Glass-Steagal was not irrelevant.
Notice the lack of financial crises on this scale between the great
depression and now.
Can you explain how the things Glass-Steagal prohibited were not
present in other countries banking rules and those countries have
had little to no issue? Or are you just drawing the correlation on
nothing more than an anecdotal comparison
|4.24.09 @ 7:50PM|#
"Frank is as good as it gets on most lifestyle issues ... and
yet he's a real lummox when it comes to economic freedom.
Isn't that the problem with left-liberalism/progressivism as a
whole?"
not really. progressives/liberals are also terrible with lifestyle
issue freedom. see: speech, right of businesses to choose to allow
smoking, transfat, etc.
alan|4.24.09 @ 9:50PM|#
Lots of AAA CDO's achieved that status through
over-collateralization that turned out not to be "over enough", bad
default assumptions, and insurance wrappers from companies that
also did not have government guarantees. So this is somewhat
misleading.
I meant 'implied guaranty' because it is a more realistic usuage of
the term than a mere contractual arrangement, in our times.
Domo, if you were in the business of assessing risk (hell, you just
my be, but for the sake of argument), and you had to assess if the
government would bail out a particular product as a factor, would
you have said, yes to the cases you mentioned? I know I would have
even before Paulson, based on what I have witnessed with the FedGov
reaction to Hurricane Hugo, without a doubt, yes.
The few exceptions, hedge funds where the managers are not
significant players, and venture capitalist, especially in
politicaly incorrect sectors of the economy.
|4.24.09 @ 11:17PM|#
Tony-
-which Rep. Frank himself tried and failed to pass
until 2007 because of Republican majorities and a
president who opposed them.
Which house(s) of Congress did the Repubs control in 2007?
|4.25.09 @ 1:59AM|#
But to the extent that FMx2 were responsible for the
financial crisis, it was because of a lack of regulation--which
Rep. Frank himself tried and failed to pass until 2007
What. The. Fuck?
You have this exactly 180 degrees wrong.
It wast he REPUBLICANS who were trying to reign in Fannie and
Freddie.
Barney Frank PERSONALLY INTERVENED to protect them from further
regulation.
He was NOT pushing for more regulation. He was pushing to exempt
them from the regulations that were applied to the private
sector.
You don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about Tony.
|4.25.09 @ 2:09AM|#
here's Barney frank circa 2003 on Fannie mae and Freddie Mac
:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not
facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney
Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial
Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see
in terms of affordable housing.''
JB|4.25.09 @ 3:21AM|#
Hey Tony, you fuckwit piece of shit. Here is a fact for
you:
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/03/business/chi-re-fannie-unsold-home-0803aug03
I hope you choke on it and it kills you.
Lying liberal scum.
|4.25.09 @ 9:16AM|#
That there Barney Fag, uh, Franks likes a big meat loaf right up his putrid ol' round brown.
MJ|4.25.09 @ 9:23AM|#
"Frank is as good as it gets on most lifestyle issues (indeed,
he even had Reason's Radley Balko testify about repealing online
gambling bans) and yet he's a real lummox when it comes to economic
freedom."
Left liberals are good on civil liberties in the abstract. In
practice, when they begin to realize how lifestyle issues affect
their interventions into economic matters their attitudes on the
specific issues become governed by utilitarianism and their own
personal peccadilloes, not a coherent set of principles.
|4.25.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Down deep this is all about Barney's paternalism and incipient racism. He thinks one way about blacks and quite another about white libertines.
|4.25.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Hazel,
You don't know what you're talking about. You don't ever do
anything but intone libertarian platitudes as if they're the
beginning and end of all wisdom.
I'm tired of debating with people who won't even bother to go to
Wikipedia to get some grasp on general facts.
|4.25.09 @ 4:04PM|#
I'm tired of debating with people who won't even bother to
go to Wikipedia to get some grasp on general facts.
Because Wikipedia is, like, totally the ultimate resource.
economist|4.25.09 @ 5:58PM|#
"You don't know what you're talking about. You don't ever do
anything but intone libertarian platitudes as if they're the
beginning and end of all wisdom."
Uh, Hazel actually provided a link to the NY Times that backed up
her assertion. Just because Barney Frank jumped the Fannie and
Freddie ship in 2007, when the proverbial shit began hitting the
fan, doesn't excuse him for shilling for the two banks back in 2003
when these regulations could have served some useful purpose
besides covering his floppy asshole.
Really, Tony, you are the ultimate partisan shill douchebag. If you
actually carried through on your "threat" to stop posting here, we
wouldn't lose a thing in terms of intellectual depth or insight.
But I highly doubt that you will, mostly because of what I've
observed of your behavior since you began posting. It's become
abundantly clear that, apart from your fellow travellers, most
everyone here pisses you off. And you waste no opportunity to tell
us, Lefiti-style, how stupid and irrelevant you think we all are.
Which leads me to believe that you simply have a perverse desire to
be pissed off. You're not interested so much in arguing, as simply
berating. It feeds your ego to come here and say "You guys are
stupid. If you would all only be more like me, you wouldn't suck so
much."
economist|4.25.09 @ 6:09PM|#
"Left liberals are good on civil liberties in the
abstract."
Left liberals are good on civil liberties...until something bad
happens to a person who exercises them, and then suddenly it
becomes necessary to regulate every activity related to the
exercise of those liberties. I would bet a cool $10,000 bet, to any
lefty who argues that Frank is better on civil liberties because,
for example, he supports legalizing online gambling, that as soon
as news comes out about people being bankrupted because they pissed
away all their money on online poker, he would quickly lead the
charge against the online gambling industry.
P.S. I know somebody else made this argument upthread, but I'm too
lazy to cite it. Sorry.
Grumpy Fellow|4.25.09 @ 6:11PM|#
If there was a tax on bullshit, Tony would be on the run from the IRS for deliquency.
|4.26.09 @ 12:23AM|#
You don't know what you're talking about.
Tony, EVERYONE who has been paying even modest attention to the
subprime mortgage crisis knows that Barney Frank is probably the
one person most directly responsible for sheilding Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac from stricter oversight back in 2003.
I can't help it that you are an ignorant fool.
economist|4.26.09 @ 12:31AM|#
Hazel,
Don't be too hard on the Tonster. As I explained above, he mostly
does this to soothe his own fragile ego.
economist|4.26.09 @ 12:33AM|#
What opened my eyes to Tony's egomania/self-hatred bipolarism was when he explained that he "believed in government" because it kept his "boundless ambition in check".
Art-P.O.G.|4.26.09 @ 1:31AM|#
What opened my eyes to Tony's egomania/self-hatred bipolarism was when he explained that he "believed in government" because it kept his "boundless ambition in check".
Whoa! You wouldn't happen to have a link, would you?
engineer|4.26.09 @ 11:45AM|#
Art P.O.G.
Wait, I remember this one. Tony said that on one of the
"seasteading" articles. Basically, he claimed that all libertarians
are really crypto-dictators and therefore any libertarian seastead
would become a dictatorship, a few people (including myself) called
bs on the notion that supporting a minimalist government somehow
makes someone a little Caesar, and then he responded with some bs
about how the government was good because it "kept his boundless
ambition in check". He may have been joking, or, as I'm inclined to
believe, he may have been dead serious.
Certainly, Tony does seem to alternate between being an egomaniac
and being self-deprecating.
engineer|4.26.09 @ 11:56AM|#
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132796.html#comments
This computer's screwed, so unfortunately I can't embed the link.
Tony's post is about 2/3-3/4 of the way through.
mark|4.26.09 @ 2:10PM|#
I'm tired of debating with people who won't even bother to
go to Wikipedia to get some grasp on general facts.
The
entry on Barney Frank's involvement in FNM/FRE, like most
Wikipedia articles on anything of importance, is nauseatingly long
and full of non-sequiturs, trivial facts, and confusing statements.
It pretty much fails to even have a coherent narrative. Why would
anyone want to base their understanding of any issue on
Wikipedia?
engineer|4.26.09 @ 5:31PM|#
mark,
"Why would anyone want to base their understanding of any issue on
Wikipedia?"
How dare you question the SoleSource of all Tony's subjects, the
All-Knowing WIKIPEDIA!
|4.26.09 @ 5:44PM|#
economist,
I'm pretty sure that was someone spoofing Tony.
Or else, he was being facetious.
Anyway, I don't think he's totally unreformable. He at least makes
an attempt at rational discourse, even if he frequently repeats
talking points and falsehoods propagated by the partisan Democratic
milieu.
After all the only major difference between liberals and
libertarians is on economic theory. If one is at least modestly
open to reason then they might be somewhat willing to reconsider
the relationship between free markets and individual liberty.
|4.26.09 @ 5:48PM|#
The Wiki article actually covers Franks involvement in blocking
reform of FNM/FME back in 2003.
It just then continues to discuss his ass-covering moves after the
shit started hitting the fan.
But the notion that 2003 didn't lead directly to 2007 is just
obvious BS. You can draw a straight line between the accounting
scandels of 2003 and the subprime bender the FNM/FMA went on that
contributed to getting so many subprime mortgages mixed into the
securities market. After all they were explictly let off the hook
on the condition that they push "affordable housing" even more.
engineer|4.26.09 @ 5:51PM|#
"Anyway, I don't think he's totally unreformable. He at least
makes an attempt at rational discourse, even if he frequently
repeats talking points and falsehoods propagated by the partisan
Democratic milieu."
That's what they said about joepboyle of Lowell, Massachusetts. And
then one day he snapped, called us all jackasses, and left. I
personally think that the disconnect between what they honestly
believed and said before Obama's election and the forming reality
now is causing the liberal posters to become increasingly unhinged.
Note also that John, who seemed fairly-well unhinged several times
during George Bush's presidency, is now normal.
Conclusion: Defending the party and president in power makes people
go insane. Which is the great upside to being a libertarian: We're
never in power, so we don't have to perorm incredible feats of
mental acrobatics to defend our politicians.
engineer|4.26.09 @ 5:52PM|#
"I'm pretty sure that was someone spoofing Tony.
Or else, he was being facetious."
Dude, Tony says stuff like that all the time,in complete and utter
seriousness.
engineer|4.26.09 @ 6:12PM|#
"After all the only major difference between liberals and
libertarians is on economic theory"
I must respectfully disagree. Liberals and libertarians disagree on
economic issues for a simple reason: most liberals are not in favor
of liberty so much as equality. Their justifications for their
positions on social issues (on which we're more likely to agree)
generally derive from egalitarian rather than libertarian
principles e.g. the liberal argument that drug laws are bad because
they tend to have a disparate impact on minorities. Doubtless they
do, and it's definitely an extra point against them, but it's not
the chief reason (from a libertarian perspective) for why they are
a bad idea. Some liberals might have a libertarian streak, which
manifests itself in their positions on a number of relatively
inconsequential social issues, but it is completely overridden by
their egalitarian dispositions with respect to economic issues.
|4.26.09 @ 6:52PM|#
True, but I think a lot of liberals are just confused libertarians. There are lots of people who buy the gay marriage and drug legalization arguments on libertarian rather than egalitarian grounds. They just get sucked into the left-liberal side of the spectrum because that's what's around them, and end up supporting all the economic garbage merely because it happens to be attached to the program. Nevermind that the Marxist-socialist left deliberately insinuates itself into these kinds of issues to spread their propaganda. (See ANSWER.) You get this partisan identification thing going on where once someone starts thinking of themselves as "left" or "liberal" they start feeling compelled to support all the other junk associated with being "left" or "liberal".
engineer|4.26.09 @ 7:04PM|#
"True, but I think a lot of liberals are just confused
libertarians."
Meh. If they are, I've never met them.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245