Hypocrisy….thy name is Obama: (h/t Gateway Pundit)
Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been traveling around the country and talking with folks about my blueprint for an economy built to last. It’s a blueprint that focuses on restoring the things we’ve always done best. Our strengths. American manufacturing. American energy. The skills and education of American workers.
And most importantly, American values like fairness and responsibility.
We know what happened when we strayed from those values over the past decade – especially when it comes to our housing market.
Lenders sold loans to families who couldn’t afford them. Banks packaged those mortgages up and traded them for phony profits. It drove up prices and created an unsustainable bubble that burst – and left millions of families who did everything right in a world of hurt.
It was wrong. The housing crisis has been the single biggest drag on our recovery from the recession. It has kept millions of families in debt and unable to spend, and it has left hundreds of thousands of construction workers out of a job.
Who created the policies that forced these banks to make loans to people who had no business getting those loans?
And who helped push those policies?
Why Mr. Obama did.
And now he wants to whine that the banks shouldn’t of given those high-risk loans out when they were REQUIRED to?
Now, we know what happens, because we’ve just seen it — what happened when we stray from those values. We saw what happened over the past decade when we strayed from those values — especially when it comes to the massive housing bubble that burst and hurt so many people. Millions of families who did the right and the responsible thing, folks who shopped for a home that they could afford, secured a mortgage, made their payments each month — they were hurt badly by the irresponsible actions of other people who weren’t playing by the same rules, weren’t taking the same care, weren’t acting as responsibly. By lenders who sold loans to people who they knew couldn’t afford the mortgages; and buyers who bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford; and banks that packaged those mortgages up and traded them to reap phantom profits, knowing that they were building a house of cards.
So which is it? Could those people afford that house or not?
Either way, these banks were FORCED to give these loans by the social do-gooders and this was one of the major reasons for the collapse in our economy, as Mata pointed out in her “US Economy – A “perfect storm” of housing and lending events” post.
But now we see the line of attack Obama will be using this election season. And what better foil does he have to use it against than a Mitt Romney?
It appears we need to focus on keeping the House and taking the Senate this election season, because we are going to get another four years of Obama.
See author page
@Hard Right: #55,
“The problem is, he doesn’t care about the truth.”
This reminds one of the recent outlandish lies which Obama financier Jon Corzine told Congress about the missing Billion dollars from MF Global accounts.
Corzine knows exactly where the money is. He’s one of the ‘insiders’ from Goldman Sachs of the late ’90s. When you have computing power which can place trades at the rate which these guys do it, you know exactly where and when every penny moves by the millisecond.
. . . . And the Democrat leadership protects Corzine, while the Democrat sheep believe him.
Who cares about the truth?
I never got a direct answer to what I consider to be the single most relevant question, did I? What we’ve got are percentages for 5 particular years–one of which came during the year of the housing market collapse, and another of which came the year after.
The interesting thing about all of those earlier years when Fannie and Freddie dominated the subprime market is that we never had a housing market crash. That came after the private sector moved in and began handing out loans to the unqualified and to housing market speculators.
James Raider
hi, I just could not resist this one.
they are lying because they know who and where the money is,
I think I found where and who.
how about the ALGORITHMS, RAN AWAY WITH IT?
we heard they control WALL STREET after all what else can they do,
I say, a lot more. and they say they work without human help, so nobody can be given the guilt for it,
what a fine escape for human
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: #58,
MsBees, I see you’ve been reading Marvin Minsky. 🙂
I think you’re on to something which we might just see a great deal more of: Blame it on the Robots!
Greg.. try using you BRAIN for once?? YOU have answered your OWN QUESTION…..
but since you STILL don’t see….
Quoting YOU, Greg…..
“The interesting thing about all of those earlier years when Fannie and Freddie dominated the subprime market is that we never had a housing market crash. That came after the private sector moved in and began handing out loans to the unqualified and to housing market speculators.”
Now THINK!! WHY is it, when the GOVERNMENT was the only one keeping (cooking?) the books.. all seemed well….
But, once these SAME DEALS.. say the LIGHT OF DAY (public sector/public VIEW) they went KABOOM??
Could it be…. The Gov was LYING about the reality of the situation.. yet, when the PUBLICLY AUDITED banks/traders etc got these, the TRUTH came out??? Face it.. Washington has been LYING about things TAX and FISCAL for YEARS now….
Do you think, that’s REMOTELY POSSIBLE, Greggy??
If you say no STILL.. then YOU explain, in a LOGICAL way, how it happened!!
Face it.. we’ve got it RIGHT… and you’re question, exactly follows the LOGIC we’ve shown you…. Frank and the feds LIED about how BAD OFF we truly were…. and it TOOK the Banks etc, throwing these WORTHLESS GOV induced loans out into the light…. to reveal the TRUTH…. and now you know.. we’re broke.
Also.. Fannie and Freddie PRE-DATE the CRA….. don’t they. Again, you answered your own question. The CRA, wrecked the Fannie/Freddie portfolios as well…. Frank simply LIED TO YOU, about their condition.
Get it NOW??
@Greg:
Wow. You are just stretching and bending and trying to find any way possible to avoid the truth, aren’t you?
Mata will more than likely submit to additional pain in order to explain it, so I won’t attempt to. What I will say is that none of us conservatives, as I said in an above post, have ever stated that private industry doesn’t deserve some of the blame. Nor have we said that the GOP actions are not to blame. Nor have we said that anything Bush did regarding housing was not to blame.
No, what we have said, and continue to say, is that there is plenty of “blame” to go around for everyone, and that it wasn’t just one ideological-driven move that led to the crash. It was years of catering to the liberal sense of entitlement. It was years of capitalist driven greed. It was years of class-warfare driven embezzlement. It was years of handing out government regulation, along with years of taking other government regulation away. It was years of financial companies figuring ways to work pseudo-ponzi schemes to make a quick buck. And it was years of enabling the two government backed financial companies to brush away any regulatory action.
It didn’t just happen in the three years or so of private-industry “dominance” in the subprime market. The only thing that shows is that private industry was catching up to what the Frank/Waters enabled government financial firms were doing.
This is what I see in this discussion, Greg. You, since the start of it, have attempted to place the blame at the feet of what you consider right-wing activities, and to “absolve” any left-leaning entity of any culpability. Mata, and others, are simply laying out the facts as to why you are wrong to do so. They are not saying, “the right has no culpability, only the left”. And this gets back to my observation about liberal/progressives NOT being able to admit failure, of any kind. You get so invested into “proving” that liberalism/progressivism is the correct ideology that you cannot see the forest for the trees, so to speak.
@Greg, this is going to be my last address to you on this, except to slap your hands yet again, then archive this thread to point to when you continue your predictable BS in the future.
I’m sorry, Greg. I don’t want to be mean, but I honestly believe this stuff is so far above your paygrade in brain power – a conclusion I’ve had to come to based solely on your responses and willingness to educate yourself. It’s just a waste of time to pursue this debate with you at all.
The reason there are only five years of the percentages of GSE to private is because… listen up again, because I’m tired of saying this…
INVOLVED WITH SUBPRIME UNTIL LATE 2002 -03.
Is there any word in that sentence you don’t get?
So why would you want to find GSE to private sector percentages relevant for years when the private sector wasn’t engaging in subprime risky loans?
duh
Oh for heavens sakes, Greg. Do you live in the bent over/assume the position for Obama and the Dems 24 hours a day? Or only when you show up here?
I provided two links for you to read that focused on history that anyone with a high school education could handle. Plus it didn’t contain equations to muddle your gray matter. You deliberately choose not to learn, but to get spoon fed. Then like a petulant child, if it’s not the sweet fruit your own party dishes out, you spit it out and reject the lesser appealing veggies.
What part about a “perfect storm” of events do you miss? Bubbles can be sustained for a time in economies in many ways… not the least of which are other bubbles, like the dot.com, driving the economy. Add reasonable Fed rates that are meant to control inflation, and more modest equity increases in property.
As the money became easier to get for the unqualified, the larger demand of “qualified” buyers hit the housing market supply, driving up prices with bidding wars. It also encouraged frenetic new construction to keep up with the demand… also driving prices up.
Meanwhile, the consumer spending started getting out of control, because those that weren’t buying took advantage of the low rates and high prices to use their houses like a piggy bank. When they spent the money on any and everything BUT the home’s improvement, they had over leveraged homes (i.e. a toxic asset with a loan higher than the value) on their hands, plus high debt.
This stuff takes time to happen, and was on the radar for many as of the late 90s, and hot and heavy in 2004-05. Your party, as well as many Republicans, chose to ignore reality and defend the status quo of an over leveraged Fannie and Freddie. To admit they made a mistake was not something they wanted to do.
Now toss in the Clinton dot com bubble burst in late 1990s, starting a recession. Then pile on with the Sept 11th attack that tanked our economy and shut down Wall Street for over a week. Ice that cake with a Fed that drops the interest rates to counteract all that, but keeps them too low for too long.
Bubble bursts and comes crashing down.
There wouldn’t have been a bubble to burst if:
1: Fannie/Freddie weren’t over leveraged to the tune of 87% of the market’s toxic mortgages
2: The easy money hadn’t created the masses of unqualified buyers who drove up the prices of the homes
3: If Congress and interest groups had not pushed for lowered criteria to increase homeownership by having the GSE’s assume more risk in their portfolio
Please stop embarrassing yourself, Greg. You’re not only a waste of time, I’ve honestly lost an unbelievable amount of respect for your brain power in this discussion. You just might be a slightly more congenial version of libdud at this point.
JohnGalt about summed it all up. Between that and Mata.. is all there…
A gradual “boiling of the frog in the pot” brought us to the brink. As he said.. YEARS, of letting bad policy “slide”…
Question is GREG…. what do we do, from THIS POINT ON? Have you considered THAT?
@johngalt, #61:
Nor do I truly believe that all fault lies with the private sector. I do sometimes get the impression here that the private sector is to be blamed for nothing, and that Obama and democrats are to be blamed for everything. I suppose that’s something that I tend to react against. Not to the extent of returning insults, at least.
The private sector is not running for office, Greggie. However, one of the architects of this mess is running for office, and hopes we will be as gullible and forgetful as you are.
@Greg: You said:
Wow, get your feelings hurt much? If you would just step back from your partisanship for a moment, you would be able to grasp what Mata is trying to get across to you.
Also it would behoove you to actually read the links provided.
Mark Levin, in his book Liberty & Tyranny explains that a leftist doesn’t have the capacity for self evaluation; the ability to look inside when things are not going as they should. This is evidenced by, among other things, your refusal to accept reality when it is presented to you with rock solid facts.
It is also evidenced in our Complainer-in-Chief, who finds fault with everyone and every thing, save himself when asked why the economy is in the basement.
Self evaluation is a hard thing to do, but if you can manage to learn to do it, you are on the road out of the pit of blackness that is progressivism.
AMEN ANTICS!!
James Raider
hi
I read about it on a report from an AUTHOR at FOX, he was telling about YAHOO HAD put a price on the book name THE FLY and the price was boost up in the market to buy it, without any human intervention,
and the subject went to ALGORITHMS, which I found very interesting, and the AUTHOR, went further to mention of the GOOGLE CODE, and the ALGORITHMS independence in WALL STREET WHICH
ARE THE ONE WHO DEPEND ON IT.
and the author went further in the future of those small critters power increasing as we go on,
I’m not sure if it’s your book, I did not get the book, as I would have like to from YAHOO, if you want it.
bye
@Greg:
No, we don’t believe the private sector is “to be blamed for nothing”, Greg. However, defense of the private sector against unwarranted accusations of “Greed” is something we do engage in, mainly to counteract those unwarranted accusations leveled against them by the liberal/progressives. No where above has Mata, or anyone else, attempting to absolve private financial firms of any culpability in creating the mess. On the flipside, there has been defense against your original posting, in #3, that asserted that it was private financial firm and private banking “greed” that led to the mess happening.
You wanted names named, correct? Two of the biggest names that continued the charade were Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, continuing to shill for Fannie and Freddie even after the numerous attempts by others to bring light upon the situation. Do you not wonder what might have happened if instead of the Frank/Waters blockade, that the gravity of the situation had been found out years earlier? And, instead of a crash, the situation could have been resolved. Knowing, Greg, is half the battle. And in this case, we, the public, didn’t know until it was too late, and for that we have Frank and Waters to thank.
And now, and since the crash happened, it has been a revolving door of blaming the other side, and the liberal/progressives, in particular, being that they do not want to hear, and won’t hear, any criticism of their side, there has not been an adequate discussion to address the actual issues that caused the mess to happen. It is about accepting the blame, or criticism, Greg, and the liberal/progressives have not done so, and may never do so, considering your own lack of knowledge, or willingness to accept the truth surrounding it. I said knowing is half the battle, Greg. Well, until we do know, and accept the reality surrounding the housing crash, there is absolutely no possible way, other than pure blind luck, to address the problems adequately. And you could state this about every issue facing the country today.
@anticsrocks #66:
Judging from that single statement, I might be tempted to conclude that there’s something seriously wrong with Mark Levin. He’s essentially arguing that those who don’t agree with his own political views lack a capacity that’s shared by most intelligent, mature human beings. The 20th Century is a showplace for where that sort of first wrong step can eventually lead.
John G. I can appreciate Matta’s well researched narrative of the housing collapse. My own experiance as a mortgage broker from 1998-2004 and mortgage banker 2005-2008 in Irvine Ca.confirms much of what both she and Greg suggest happened during that period.
1998- 9/11/2001 R.E. market heating up after relative doldrums of mid nineties.Push to put more into home ownership Facilitated by fannie and freddie, pushed strongly by Clinton and Bush(2001-2008).
9/11/2001- 2005 INTEREST RATES DECLINING Real Estate market appreciating dramatically.
Lending prnciples(??) began a rapid decent. Stated(LIARS) loans became the rage. Downpayment–no need with 100% financing- Fico score–where once 680-700 required now 620-640 ok’d It became easier to buy a house than rent an apartment.At least you MET the landlord.
2005-2007 Yes my friends GREED was rampant. Bankers could and did hide huge commissions through non-disclosed back end rebates. Borrowers were put in neg.am. loans( less than interest only) they could never repay. Mantra was “market’s gonna continue to rise at 10%+per annum,and we’ll refi you into conventional loan once you’ve got enough equity” Pure B.S. and most anyone over 40 knew it.
This greed from lenders and borrowers had no political face. Mata pointed out the seeds were planted years earlier.What grew was massive,watered by all.
2007-2011 TIMBER The market could not sustain itself. Obvious in hindsight. Not so much when you’er there.
To place the blame on a political party is an excuse to not look at participating individual’s motivations.
Admittedly,just my take.
@greg,
Are you assuming that a statement like that will lead to the atrocities of the 20th century? Wow. There’s a big step there.
While I agree that a blanket statement like that may be counterproductive, I have found many liberals who refuse to use logic in defining their positions but emotion. “For the children…” etc.
“Judging from that single statement, I might be tempted to conclude that there’s something seriously wrong with Mark Levin. He’s essentially arguing that those who don’t agree with his own political views lack a capacity that’s shared by most intelligent, mature human beings.”
Greg, look at Obama, and the Democrats current march towards Socialism…… Now, look at EUROPE, where EVERY SOCIALIST EXPERIMENT has UTTERLY FAILED….. um.. if one SELF EVALUATED.. based on these BLATANT EXAMPLES.. one would determine.. such a course, is NOT GOOD.
Yet Obama , and his Followers continue without hesitation towards Socialistic Behavior. Levin is right.
I rest my simple, yet proper case.
@chipset, #72:
Generally what will be found in retrospect is a series of little steps, with people wondering at the end of the journey how the hell they ever came to this.
@Hankster58, #74:
Modern Europe presently has problems. Name a place that doesn’t. That said, modern Europe is hardly what most people would call an utter failure. Most of modern Europe is quite advanced, compared with other places. The United States included. As a whole, the European Union’s debt represents a smaller percentage of the annual GDP than that of the United States. To be specific, around 82% vs. 100%.
@greg,
No offense, but much of the “advanced” Europe has decided that their social programs are unsustainable. Look at France and Germany. And see the problems of Greece, Spain, Ireland.
In essence, you are correct, the result of government actions precipitated the results we see. At the time, it looks like a series of unfortunate events. However, with a retrospective, you can see how the actions led to the results. You cannot have loans given out when the person approving the loan isn’t the person holding the paper and expect different results..
There are rare and few loans that are held by the original lending entity, and not resold. (Don’t confuse owning the note with loan servicing).
What you advocate… suggesting that every financial institution has to hold the note for the entire term of loan… means that only a privileged few will get home loans, and everyone else be damned. The banks will deplete their cash on a small amount of loans, and there will be no more left to offer to others.
This is the entire reason that the secondary mortgage market was created to begin with. To free up cash by selling the note, replenishing the cash, so that others could also take out a loan.
The problem is not, nor has ever been, the secondary mortgage market. The problem is making risky loans that are dangerous to inject into the financial system to begin with.
Note how nations rank, in terms of national debt as a percentage of GDP. Some that rank the best (at the bottom of the list) are those where I would least like to live. Note also that a number of nations that rank quite well are modern social democracies, having very high standards of living.
@chipset, #75:
In general, I agree with that sentiment. There at least should be no way to evade accountability.
@anticsrocks:
Anticsrocks, apologies.
I have a copy of Mark Levin’s book in front of me.
As I recalled before pulling it down, Mark contrasts, not liberals VS conservatives, but STATISTS vs conservatives.
I cannot find your paraphrase: a leftist doesn’t have the capacity for self evaluation; the ability to look inside when things are not going as they should.
Please find it.
I know it was only a paraphrase, but I think you got it further wrong than you realized.
Please, if you do find it, post the page it is on.
Thanks in advance.
Nan
@greg,
High national debt is unsustainable. Ask Greece how it is working for them.
You can borrow as a government to help improve infrastructure. Makes sense. But massive debt issuance leads to massive problems. It’s not so much the ability to raise debt, it’s the ability to pay it back.
Think of it this way. If 1 dollar equalled 1 second, A million dollars is 11 days. A billion dollars is 31 years. And a trillion dollars is 31,709 years.
Now 15T debt spread across 300M people. That’s $50,000 per man, woman and child. And there’s interest piling up on that every day. You can’t take it all from the rich, as they will be mobile and leave (look at China’s problem with their rich.. They can’t “own” anything and are looking to get out when they can.)
And that’s just the debt, not counting the deficit that adds to the debt each year. So, help me out Greg.. When are you writing a check for yourself and everyone in your family to the government.
I don’t have a problem with the government spending money. I have issues with how much and where they spend it. Our government is a 22 year old with a meager income but a great credit card. They spend the money on furniture (good things to have) and pizza and beer (something gone today).
So, when you tell me that the debt doesn’t mean much, what is going to happen when that 22 year old hits the credit limit and the bank refuses to raise it? His standard of living is going to have to plummet because he was living well beyond his means.
You can’t tax businesses because business doesn’t make money in a vacuum. All that money comes from people… Taxing a business is really just another tax on people, but some people see it as an abstract item. So, Greg, where’s all that money coming from?
Do you think only conservatives are aware of that reality?
The only solution will displease everybody: Higher taxes for everybody, and spending cuts affecting everything.
Democrats hate one side of the solution while republicans hate the other side. Nevertheless, it’s the only solution that’s real.
Greg.
High taxes choke out economic growth. We are currently a SERVICE provider economy. Service economies, “create” no new wealth. That’s why we’re stagnated. putting it very simply.
You cannot GIVE away, the amount of money we do, in social services etc, without getting something back for it. it’s Fiscally, and PHYSICALLY unsustainable.
Giving DC MORE money, will solve nothing. Washington has proven, time after time it is INCAPABLE, of controlling itself SPENDING WISE…. look at Obama’s campaign PROMISES, compared to what he has ACTUALLY DONE.. fiscal wise.
The only solution, is to FORCE DC to cut, and stick to it. Giving them, yet MORE dollars to spend, is like giving a recovering alcoholic a case of booze, and expecting him NOT to open or drink it… FOOLHARDY & STUPID!
Again, you deny the issue. You comment about Europe being “advanced”… So?? Technology, etc, isn’t the issue… GOVERNMENTAL PHILOSOPHY is…. and, the SOCIAL philosophy they have followed, has broke virtually each and every one of them, who has tried it. Name ONE successful Socialist Country. JUST ONE!! You can’t.
You go on, and keep convincing yourself, somehow, by some miracle of whatever, LIBERALS, can do what no one else EVER, has been able to. Make Socialism SUSTAINABLE…. You want to believe that fantasy, knock yourself out. I’m not arguing further with you.
You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make him drink it. You’re like talking to a rock, and less intelligent than one. Have a nice life. You’re now “Persona non grata” to the Hankster… I’ll waste no more time on a brain dead leftist Zombie…
Sorry, to any Zombie’s I’ve insulted here! LOL! Nite all!! The rest of you guys.. best of luck with this one.. I’m out!
Chipset.. you said it!! You might tell Greg the Zombie.. if we took EVER DIME, from the rich.. ALL OF IT..every cent they own… it would fund the Country.. for around 8 or so months.. and THAT’S IT!! THEN WHAT does Greg propose we do??? You have NO ONE ELSE to rob…….. If they REFUSE to STOP SPENDING money we DO NOT HAVE.. we’re done. Game over. How hard is that for people like him to understand?? Sheesh!!
Uh.. Nan.. look up the Def of statism…. and Compare it, to the political actions of the left. Nuff said….
@Greg: You said:
No, he is stating that when a Conservative sees things aren’t going as planned, typically they step back and do a self-evaluation. This can be borne out by observing Reagan’s first term. After he put his Conservative actions in place to correct the economic mess handed to him by Carter, the first two years were pretty rough. That recession was particularly hard hitting and even though he was sure of his actions being the best for what ailed the country, he still wondered if he had maybe missed something. Remember, the economy didn’t turn around overnight. It took a bit of time for his remedies to show success. Being a true Conservative, he did a self-evaluation and reflected on his chosen course of action.
Of course he took the right measures, history bears this out, but at the time it was sometimes difficult to see this.
Now look at Obama juxtaposed against what I just said about Reagan. He has put in place his own actions to fix the economy and things are not going as he had hoped. Does he look to his own inner being to reflect on whether what he is doing is the right and just path? Or has he placed the blame on virtually everything and everyone but himself?
Obama has blamed Bush, the Japanese tsunami & earthquake, ATM machines, the “Arab spring” and now he rails against a “do-nothing Congress.”
THAT is what Mark Levin was saying when he said that liberals typically do not think in terms of self reflection, they generally find fault in others. Slow down and look deeper. In fact, if you like reading, I would highly suggest his book, Liberty & Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto.
Read it and then I would be happy to discuss it with you.
@Hankster58: Thank you, H.
anticsrocks I’ m 67 yrs young and a political junkie since I ran for(lost) student council pres. my jr. year in H.S.
In that time I’ve never seen such a cocksure, unyielding.uncompromising,infallible—should I go on—group as the self proclaimed conservs. of F.A.
It’s been an eye opening unbelievable experience. I’ve enjoyed it immensely.
@Hankster58, #83:
You’re not actually restating what I said in #81. You’re taking issue with something I didn’t say.
What I said is that the only real solution is for everybody to pay more taxes, and for all spending to be subject to cuts.
There’s no other way to balance the budget and to begin paying down the national debt. Any politician of either party telling us something different is just being a typical politician, and isn’t really going to do anything useful about deficits or debt.
@Nan G: No apologies needed. 🙂
You are correct in that I substituted the term “liberal” for the term “Statist.” Mark Levin uses the term Statist to sum up the entire left.
As for my paraphrasing of Levin’s position that the Statist has no capacity for self-evaluation, I derive that from the first chapter where he says, emphasis mine:
In the second chapter, Levin shows that true Conservatism is open to change. He quotes Burke, pointing out that:
Also in chapter two, Levin discusses the Statist’s inability for self-assessment, or as I referred to it above, self-evaluation, emphasis mine:
So summing it all up, I paraphrased when I said, “a leftist doesn’t have the capacity for self evaluation; the ability to look inside when things are not going as they should.”
Again, you were right in pointing out that I used the term “liberal” when I ought to have used the blanket term, “Statist.” However, I believe that my assertion is still basically correct in that a Statist does indeed not have the capacity for self-assessment.
I am happy to discuss Mark Levin, and his book Liberty & Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto anytime. I will be getting his latest book, Ameritopia hopefully soon and can dig into it.
@Richard Wheeler: We all should take a page from your book, Rich and be as open to new ideas as you are…
Dang rich.. that is a sad story. To hear that in almost seven decades of life, you’ve never been privileged to know those that have courage and strength of convictions. But then, perhaps that is why you are an unapologetic liberal, yes? LOL
Definition of HYPOCRITE
1
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2
: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
The right-wing throws this word around much too ‘liberally’. A ‘hypocrite’, in current conservative jargon, seems to be synonymous with “I don’t agree with that position”—for whatever reason. It has become a negative name to call someone to signal our disapproval.
Example: For Obama to be correctly called a hypocrite in this situation, he would have to be in a position to not be able to afford a home purchase, but purchase one anyway, while admonishing others for doing the same thing.
OPEN and Transparent Administration…. all deals done behind closed doors….
ALL laws will be posted on the net for days, before being voted on…… we have to pass it, to see whats IN it!
I could go on all day… but I think I made the valid point… those PROMISES Obama made.. vs. his ACTIONS in office.
HYPOCRITICAL….. wouldn’t you say?? LOL!!!
“They (lobbyists) won’t work in my White House… They are not going to dominate my White House… You will not be able to go lobby for an industry that you regulated, and I won’t hire somebody into my administration regulating the industry he or she worked for.”
He’s got nothing but……..
“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”
Debunked above…..
“I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.”
”Expand the earned income tax credit for workers without children and taxpayers with more than three children. Equalize thresh holds for married filers and head of household filers.”
“The people I meet in town hall meetings back home would rather fill their cars with fuel made from coal reserves in Southern Illinois than with fuel made from crude reserves in Saudi Arabia. We already have the technology to do this in a way that’s both clean and efficient. What we’ve been lacking is the political will.” – June 7, 2006
So, why fight the pipeline doing the same thing?? where’s the ILLINOIS “coal/oil”??
HYPOCRITE!! I’d say so… a few hundred times over…. Sorry Liberal1.. you lose BIG TIME here…
Hankster58
hi
I knew he would be blast for being so ignorant as he always is, that must be a virus going in the libs brain lately, like a cloud of blob blurring the inside of the head,
thank you for the pill you gave him, not sure he will gulp it, he’s too far gone eaten by the blob,
bye
Mata and Anticsrocks 91 and 90 EXACTLY
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
Obama is correctly defined as a hypocrite on this issue because he, as a “community organizer” advocated for people against banking institutions, so that those people would get those subprime loans. Now, however, he is criticizing those same banking institutions for giving loans to the people he advocated for. In other words, his “actions” were in direct contradiction to his stated viewpoint. Hypocrite.
Better yet, Obama is a LIAR. I call him such because he fails to disclose that his own actions then, of taking people and forcing banks to loan money to them, regardless of their ability to pay on the loans, and basically blackmailing the banking institutions to do so, contributed to the problem.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): You said:
Boy when you are wrong, you really do it up big!
Obama is a hypocrite because he has been part of the left’s concerted effort to force banks to make less than ideal loans to less than ideal customers, and then out of the other side of his mouth, he is now admonishing them for doing it.
Duh.
It is explained further, and quite nicely too, by johngalt.
@Richard Wheeler: It is such a shame that you don’t recognize sarcasm when you see it.
Darn anticsrocks I really believed you were payin me a complement. LOL
For the record From 2005-2008 I was a Mortgage Banker Originating sub prime loans as well as “A” paper loans in Irvine Ca, No govt. entity Forced me to do anything. And as you all know, by Jan 2009 sub prime lending had come to a halt. Only the highest quality borrower could get a loan and this remains the case today.
Haven’t seen Ms Bees passing out kudos lately
Curious Richard, why would ANYONE, willingly issue a Crap loan??? Seriously… if a person doesn’t meet the “safe” criteria.. they don’t qualify. Period. so why did you institution make them?
Hankster A fair question. We were caught in the hype that the market was going up,rising values would protect the lenders position and we would refi the borrowers into more conventional loans down the road. Also if we didn’t make the loans someone else would.
Honestly I resisted the hype as much as I could and made primarily A paper loans( substantially lower renumeration).
As a stockbroker I ‘d seen similar frenzy before but this was the ultimate..
I’m out of the business and have no desire to re-engage.
Richard Wheeler
I knew you did not say that because you where missing me, when I read it,
congratulation, Hankster58 was kind enough to give it to you,
he know how immature you are,
or did you take it from him?
bye
Thanks Bees Hankster’s a good man.
@Richard Wheeler: It wasn’t intended as an insult, but a sarcastic observation that while you were calling the Conservative regulars here at FA, how did you put it? – oh yeah, “…a cocksure, unyielding.uncompromising,infallible—should I go on—group…,” you haven’t been the most flexible when it comes to adapting to ideas foreign to your ideology.
It just seemed, dare I say? – a tad bit hypocritical for you to be throwing stones like that.
.
.
Apparently, anticsrocks, when I repeated his “insults” about the character trait of strength of convictions on another thread, he has claimed that it’s just fine to be “cocksure, unyielding, uncompromising, infallible” if your goals are… in his opinion… “noble”.
Yeah Rich, i can see some of that. My In Laws got caught up in the same “fever”…the same deal.. refi’d because value kept climbing.. except when it DROPPED… they ended up 75GRAND upside down value wise….. to add insult to injury… the County RAISED taxes on them! What a “F”D up world…..