I don't personally find it hard to be grateful, even during periods when I'm less than joyful. The Mrs. and I having recently moved to a warmer climate state, a number of factors have dampened my enthusiasm. For example, it was intended that I would retire, working only for something to do and to get a little "beer and ammo money". But fools refused to vote for Trump and the thriving economy resulting from his tax and regulatory policies is now in the toilet because of the senile buffoon illegitimately ensconced in the Big Chair. Yet despite the inflation inflicted upon us by this inept and unfit sniffing old codger, I remain thankful we made the move (of course, given I fled Illinois, where morons rule and the cost of living is even more expensive, how could I not be?).
We miss the fam, but we're enjoying having each other to ourselves, while also thankful that our youngest, freshly married two months ago, is still planning to join us down here. The wife is digging her job, while I'm digging not having to work more than a few days a week while still earning well. And given our ages, we're in pretty good health...my excess 20-30 pounds notwithstanding. So given the state of the nation, the world, the culture and other considerations, we're still very much thankful to our Lord for the many blessings we have no trouble recognizing every day. (I could do without the cat, but he makes her happy, so...)
Two US Presidents saw fit to acknowledge we owe a great deal of thanks to Someone in particular:
New York, 3 October 1789
By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Washington, D.C.
October 3, 1863By the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
But for the last few years this day has rolled around, I can't help but wonder about all those who do not believe. Few people consider the object of commemoration when federal holidays come about. They're just paid days off and a time to party. But this day is different than the others. Atheists still have Santa, even if they don't have Christ, so they still can feel the "Christmas spirit". But to whom are they giving thanks on Thanksgiving?
If one believes all good things have been solely the result of one's own efforts, I would think every day is a day to give thanks to one's self. But what of all those with whom such a person would spend the day feasting and watching football? Does such a person expect gratitude from the rest? How does that work? Perhaps they just ignore the reason for the day and enjoy as they would any other party. I've been at a gathering where, for the sake of teaching the kids, all around the table would take turns mentioning something for which they are thankful. I think that's when the question first hit me...thankful to whom? I don't recall if that was part of the exercise, though it certainly should have been if it wasn't. But what of those who don't believe? To whom do they give thanks for all the good things in their lives?
George and Abe saw fit to set aside a time for giving thanks to Almighty God. In this day and age, with faith constantly under attack, I'm surprised they still allow Thanksgiving to exist as a federal holiday, what with all that separation of church and state crap so many like to spew. I know from Whom all my blessings flow. It is to Him I give thanks.
26 comments:
If one believes all good things have been solely the result of one's own efforts, I would think every day is a day to give thanks to one's self.
You know, all good things being the result of my own effort and all good things coming from God are not the only two possibilities. I believe that many of the good things in my life have been the result of random chance. I was lucky to be born into a stable family in a peaceful, prosperous country rather into an unstable family in a poor country that is wracked by violence. I can be appreciative of that fact with identifying a particular benefactor as being responsible.
If God deserves the credit for all the good things that have happened to me, then He also deserves all the blame for the bad things that have happened to other people.
All good things which come from one's self or from other people are possible because of God's love for us. What you call random chance is also the work of the Lord. You just want to pretend it's random. It wasn't luck which put you in a stable family in a peaceful, prosperous country. It was God who did that. Luck isn't real.
The only way one can "blame" God for all the bad things which happen is to criticize Him for giving us free-will. For it is the free-will choices of people which causes all bad things. Yet at the same time, bad things give people the opportunity to do good to correct and overcome the bad things.
This is why Evangelicals make such good Trumpers: they have been indoctrinated by their religion to take credit for every good thing that happens and to blame someone else for every bad thing that happens.
Thank you so much for helping me make my point. I thank God for the opportunity of correcting your position:
You have free will and you've chosen to use it disparage Evangelicals and Trump supporters.
You also use your free will to disparage them as those who default to blaming while Biden has blamed Russia/Putin and Trump for the problems we now face which are clearly the direct result of his own policies. Your boy Obama spent a great deal of time blaming GW Bush for problems he himself was too stupid to resolve...some of which he could have addressed during his wasted time as a US Senator while Bush was still president.
"Blame" comes in two forms:
As an excuse of one's own failures (common among leftists), and
As a legitimate explanation of the problems we musts endure. That is, in drawing a direct line between cause and effect, which is more honestly the case on the right.
I thank God for this opportunity to set things right.
You didn't correct anything. You confirmed my point perfectly. Your cult has so thoroughly brainwashed you that you don't bat an eye when one of your wingnut websites tells you that a junior Democratic Senator is responsible for catastrophes visited on the country by George Bush's presidency.
Nice attempt at deflection, Vinny, you brainwashed lefty. The point you haven't the honesty to acknowledge is that Obama spent a great deal of time blaming Bush for a whole host of things. Google "Obama constantly blamed Bush" and then pretend it's all about "wingnut websites" brainwashing anyone.
The point [is] you haven't the honesty to acknowledge is that Obama spent a great deal of time blaming Bush for a whole host of things.
I don't know if you remember how screwed up things were in 2008 with the military quagmires and the near collapse of the financial system, but there were quite a few things that Bush deserved blame for.
My point is that your cult's brainwashing has produced your absurd belief that a first-term Senator was in a position to correct Bush's screw-ups.
Oh...that's your point! It's moronic, as it intentionally deflects from the correction I made to your wishful thinking regarding "brainwashed" Trump supporters blaming others. Like Biden does now, Obama blamed his predecessor for that which he was too incompetent to address. Obama was part of the Dem majority during the time the recession hit. Thus, he was part of a majority which could have acted to prevent, mitigate or correct the economic situation. My point is legit. He blamed Bush for that which occurred while he was also present and involved. So cut the crap.
This reminds me of your insistence that the Georgia Secretary of State could have removed the wrong county ballots from the totals. You couldn't suggest the manner in which he could have accomplished that (and in fact it would have been impossible), but you needed to believe that he could have done something in order to justify your claim that Trump had been wronged by his inaction. Now you need to believe that the Democrats could have prevented, mitigated, or corrected the 2008 financial crisis because your side is incapable of accepting any responsibility for its screw-ups. As before, you can't suggest how this might have been accomplished, but you are nonetheless sure that it is so.
Knowing how long it took me to get you to understand how simple things like postmarks and secret ballots work, I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you about an issue as complex as the 2008 financial crisis and the relative competence of the legislature and executive to address it.
Actually, the initial thrust of my argument regard the Georgia case...as my re-reading of the comments section confirm...is that the discovery of so many illegitimate ballots should have triggered a re-election, and at the very least, an unwillingness to certify.
And of course, given the fact Dem policies were largely, if not exclusively, the reason for the 2008 financial crisis, it's not unreasonable to suggest no culpability on the part of the GOP...though I don't go quite that far in any case. But again, the real point here is you pretending only Trump supporters or conservatives or Christians or whomever isn't on your side of the divide, only take credit for good things and blame others for the bad, while ignoring how your people (Biden, Obama, etc.) spent tons of time doing that.
Finally, I recall your attempts to "school" me on the 2008 situation before and you failed then. It's wise you don't waste your time failing a second time.
Actually, the initial thrust of my argument regard the Georgia case...as my re-reading of the comments section confirm...is that the discovery of so many illegitimate ballots should have triggered a re-election, and at the very least, an unwillingness to certify.
Yes. I remember you making that argument. I also remember thinking that you should have stuck with it because it wouldn't be theoretically impossible to rerun the election. It would, of course, be ridiculous to expect Georgia to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to rerun an election in which all those wrong-county voters would still be eligible to cast ballots, and in which wrong-county voting would undoubtedly occur again. Instead, you demonstrated your ignorance of how a secret ballot works by switching to the ridiculous argument that the Georgia Secretary of State should have removed wrong-county votes from the totals—something that isn't even theoretically possible.
And of course, given the fact Dem policies were largely, if not exclusively, the reason for the 2008 financial crisis, it's not unreasonable to suggest no culpability on the part of the GOP...though I don't go quite that far in any case.
You are indeed a model of circumspection, although not of understanding.
I will be happy to acknowledge that plenty of Democrats turned a blind eye to Wall Street's excesses. Nevertheless, when it comes to a question of policy, the Republicans are the party of laissez-faire capitalism. It is Republicans who argue that government regulation is inherently a bad thing and that corporations should be free to run their businesses as they see fit. It was Republicans who argued that banks were best able to determine how much risk they should take. It was Republicans who argued that the magic of market forces would keep banks in line.
But again, the real point here is you pretending only Trump supporters or conservatives or Christians or whomever isn't on your side of the divide, only take credit for good things and blame others for the bad, while ignoring how your people (Biden, Obama, etc.) spent tons of time doing that,
How can that be the real point? I have never said any such thing.
Finally, I recall your attempts to "school" me on the 2008 situation before and you failed then. It's wise you don't waste your time failing a second time.
Yes. I recall that, too. I recall providing you with an excellent resource that explained why the Community Redevelopment Act didn't contribute to the subprime mortgage crisis, which you ignored because you couldn't determine whether the writer was a Democrat or a Republican. At least in those days, you weren't so foolish as to argue that it was reasonable to completely absolve Republicans from any responsibility for what happened.
"I remember you making that argument. I also remember thinking that you should have stuck with it because it wouldn't be theoretically impossible to rerun the election."
Adding new elements to a position doesn't mean I've abandoned the initial point which remains strong. And no, it's not at all "theoretically impossible" to rerun an election. It's only a notion rejected by the cheating bastards who profited by the cheating.
"It would, of course, be ridiculous to expect Georgia to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to rerun an election in which all those wrong-county voters would still be eligible to cast ballots, and in which wrong-county voting would undoubtedly occur again."
What's ridiculous is presuming the only option is rerunning the election. If an election is run contrary to law, it is invalid and the electors should not be counted. Thus, no expense is wasted except that which was expended to run the election so tainted by leftist/Trump-hating malfeasance.
"Instead, you demonstrated your ignorance of how a secret ballot works by switching to the ridiculous argument that the Georgia Secretary of State should have removed wrong-county votes from the totals—something that isn't even theoretically possible."
One thought is that just as it would be easy enough to reject the entire state from the Electoral total, Georgia could have rejected the entire total of votes from counties where irregularities were so impactful and count only the rest. Honest people don't much care about the effort necessary to correct illegality. Those like you are more than happy to accept illegality when your people win as a result. "Oh well! Can't do nuthin about it now!" Typical.
"You are indeed a model of circumspection, although not of understanding."
So you desperately need to believe.
I'll get to the rest of your desperate rationalizations late.
"I will be happy to acknowledge that plenty of Democrats turned a blind eye to Wall Street's excesses."
They turn a blind eye to anything which results in profit for them. More often than not, they're a part of those excesses.
"Nevertheless, when it comes to a question of policy, the Republicans are the party of laissez-faire capitalism."
And a sound policy it is, too!
"It is Republicans who argue that government regulation is inherently a bad thing and that corporations should be free to run their businesses as they see fit."
A simplistic way to put it, but very much in alignment with the philosophy of the founders.
"It was Republicans who argued that banks were best able to determine how much risk they should take."
And a sound argument it is, too! Who else should determine how much risk one should take? YOU? Tell you what, Vinny...I think the state should insist you endure the risk of removing the doors of your home. Or should that risk be determined by your own tolerance?
"It was Republicans who argued that the magic of market forces would keep banks in line."
And a sound argument it is, too! Banks, and business in general, always act according to what the market will bear. That's basic stuff. If a bank can make money by NOT loaning to anyone, they'd never loan a penny. But no bank wants to loan to anyone who can't prove their credit worthiness, nor are they likely to loan to anyone who has no means of repaying. In what way do you think banks would "step out of line" without government force?
"How can that be the real point? I have never said any such thing."
Who said this: "This is why Evangelicals make such good Trumpers: they have been indoctrinated by their religion to take credit for every good thing that happens and to blame someone else for every bad thing that happens."
"I recall providing you with an excellent resource that explained why the Community Redevelopment Act didn't contribute to the subprime mortgage crisis, which you ignored because you couldn't determine whether the writer was a Democrat or a Republican."
Your powers of recall is clearly poor. Your resource wasn't "excellent". You only thought it was. But the CRA absolutely contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis regardless of your "excellent" resource asserting otherwise.
Also, I don't quibble based on the political orientation of an author, but only on the reliability of that which is reported. That I wondered as to the political affiliation of your source is secondary at best to the "facts" reported.
Finally, I never dismiss GOP culpability, but only question allegations of them made by your kind...honesty not being particularly essential to those like you.
Adding new elements to a position doesn't mean I've abandoned the initial point which remains strong.
Adding impossible new elements to your position means that you don't understand the issues, which is why you don't understand that your initial point was never strong.
And no, it's not at all "theoretically impossible" to rerun an election. It's only a notion rejected by the cheating bastards who profited by the cheating.
In the first place, you've never shown (because you can't) that anyone profited from wrong-county voters. Since the majority of wrong-county votes were cast in person, it is more likely that they favored Trump anyway.
In the second place, when I pointed out how ridiculous rerunning the election would be, you also rejected it and started proposing alternatives. Of course, since you don't understand the issues, your alternatives were even more ridiculous.
If an election is run contrary to law, it is invalid and the electors should not be counted.
Don't be stupid. The election wasn't run contrary to the law. Some voters failed to follow the law by failing to register in the correct county, but that does not imply that the election was run improperly. Would you call traffic lights contrary to law just because some people don't obey them?
Honest people don't much care about the effort necessary to correct illegality.
What would a Trumper know about what honest people care about?
Honest people who are rational always weigh the costs and benefits of a course of action. Wrong-county voting occurs because voters fail to register in the correct county. Correcting the problem would require election officials to track the residence of every voter in real time. It would be incredibly expensive as well as intrusive.
Who else should determine how much risk one should take? YOU? Tell you what, Vinny...I think the state should insist you endure the risk of removing the doors of your home. Or should that risk be determined by your own tolerance?
It depends on who is affected by the externalities. If both the costs and the benefits of taking a risk fall on the same person, that person should be the one to decide whether or not to take the risk. In the case of the subprime mortgages, the benefits fell on the banks and bankers while the costs of bailing out the financial system were borne by society as a whole. It would, therefore, have been absolutely right and just for the government to limit the banks' risky behavior.
But no bank wants to loan to anyone who can't prove their credit worthiness, nor are they likely to loan to anyone who has no means of repaying.
That's not what happened, though, is it? Have you forgotten about “no-doc” and “pick-a-payment” loans? Mortgage lenders made billions in loans to people with bad credit because they thought that they could pass the risk off by bundling the loans and selling them as mortgage-backed securities.
In what way do you think banks would "step out of line" without government force?
In exactly the way did. Banks made loans based on their short-term profit potential while ignoring the long-term systemic risks they were creating.
"Adding impossible new elements to your position means that you don't understand the issues, which is why you don't understand that your initial point was never strong."
Nice misrepresentation to precede your insistence my point was weak, which isn't at all true. It's just what you need to be true.
"In the first place, you've never shown (because you can't) that anyone profited from wrong-county voters."
Biden profited. If there were enough invalid ballots to trigger a re-do, which there was, or to justify not certifying the election, which is even more the case, then Biden absolutely profited.
"Since the majority of wrong-county votes were cast in person, it is more likely that they favored Trump anyway."
I don't know that either one of those things are true, and since you were keen to bring up secret balloting, there's no way to pretend the votes favored either candidate. All we can say is that the counting of invalid ballots favored the winner when the election should not have been certified in the first place because of them.
"In the second place, when I pointed out how ridiculous rerunning the election would be, you also rejected it and started proposing alternatives."
It's only ridiculous to those who have no problem with invalid ballots cast in an election not won by Trump. You think the effort to correct for such is ridiculous. Honest people don't like the effort but understand it's the proper course. Find an honest person and ask him. Thus, I never rejected the option of rerunning the election.
"Of course, since you don't understand the issues, your alternatives were even more ridiculous."
Not certifying the election was the least problematic alternative to rerunning, and given the other problems in that state, the most just. A state which can't run a fair election doesn't deserve to have it count. That's bad for the honest people in the state, but for the nation it's just.
"Don't be stupid. The election wasn't run contrary to the law. Some voters failed to follow the law by failing to register in the correct county, but that does not imply that the election was run improperly. Would you call traffic lights contrary to law just because some people don't obey them?"
And you dare call me stupid. Laws must be enforced. This example was but one which was ignored, not only by the voters who didn't care to make sure they were following it, but by the election officials who didn't care to check the validity of the ballots. I know you can't stand the fact the result was the better man being robbed rather than being honestly defeated, but you'll just have to deal.
"What would a Trumper know about what honest people care about?"
That's funny coming from you.
"Honest people who are rational always weigh the costs and benefits of a course of action."
You clearly don't understand honesty and those who strive for it. Again, upon having been informed how many ballots were improperly cast, the election should not have been certified at the very least. But the effort to correct a mistake is not an impediment to honest people who care about those impacted by the mistake.
"It depends on who is affected by the externalities. If both the costs and the benefits of taking a risk fall on the same person, that person should be the one to decide whether or not to take the risk."
We're not talking about risk taken on one's own volition, but on risk imposed by an outside entity, in this case, the government. In my hypothetical, it's not a matter of you choosing to remove your doors because you think you can deal with the risk of doing so, but of the state demanding you remove the doors without regard for your level of risk tolerance. This is what Dems did to banks and lenders. They pressured, if not outright forced, banks and lenders to make loans they would not otherwise make.
There was no benefit to the banks prior to the bundling afforded to them to relieve them of the risk imposed upon them. You want to pretend they saw lending money to risky borrowers as a freaking good idea? What a moronic thing to suggest! And now you want to suggest they should have borne the brunt of the losses?? That makes you an asshole! The end result of the taxpayer doing so is not the result of anything the lenders ever intended. It's also the result of the Dem policies which provoked the whole thing. Jeez, you're a moron!! The government didn't limit the banks risky behavior!! They mandated it!!
"That's not what happened, though, is it? Have you forgotten about “no-doc” and “pick-a-payment” loans? Mortgage lenders made billions in loans to people with bad credit because they thought that they could pass the risk off by bundling the loans and selling them as mortgage-backed securities."
That's not how it went down. You're re-writing history. Typical. Enough.
I realize that there is little point in trying to educate you on this topic, but I figure there may be people who follow your blog who are not be immune to understanding, so I'll run through it again anyway.
You want to pretend they saw lending money to risky borrowers as a freaking good idea?
Yes. Lending money to risky borrowers can be a perfectly good idea. Have you never heard of pawn shops or payday loan stores? It is a matter of getting sufficient collateral and charging an interest rate high enough to offset the risk of default.
Lenders had been bundling subprime loans and selling them long before the subprime mortgage bubble. The practice didn't start with thirty-year mortgages, however: it started with things like thirty-six-month car loans. As you can imagine, forecasting default rates over three years is much easier than forecasting default rates over thirty-years. Moreover, assessing the adequacy of collateral was easier, too. Lenders could predict how much a car was likely to depreciate and how much they would likely be able to recover by repossessing it. Predicting the value of real estate over thirty-years is much harder and foreclosure is much more complicated than repossession. Subprime mortgage lenders ignored these problems, counting on the fact that real estate prices had always gone up in the past.
This is what Dems did to banks and lenders. They pressured, if not outright forced, banks and lenders to make loans they would not otherwise make.
Imagine that you owned a Jiffy Lube and the government told you that you had to provide oil changes to needy people for free. How many free oil changes would you provide? Would you provide the absolute minimum number necessary to meet the government requirement? Or would you go bat-shit crazy providing as many free oil changes as you could? Would you hire extra workers so you could provide even more free oil changes? Would you go out and buy up other Jiffy Lube franchises, so you could provide even more free oil changes?
In order to believe that a government mandate drove subprime mortgage lending, you would have to believe that bankers are absolute fools. You would have to believe that bankers somehow ceased to understand the difference between a profitable loan and an unprofitable loan as a result of the government mandate. There is no rational explanation for how big the subprime mortgage market became other than that bankers thought they had figured out a way to do them profitably.
I once again refer you to Barry Ritholtz, who explains what would have happened if The Community Reinvestment Act had been responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis.
Here’s what we should have seen:
● Home sales and prices in urban, minority communities would have led the national home market higher, with gains in percentage terms surpassing national figures;
● CRA mandated loans would have defaulted at higher rates;
● Foreclosures in these distressed urban CRA neighborhoods should have far outpaced those in the suburbs;
● Local lenders making these mortgages should have failed at much higher rates;
● Portfolios of banks participating in the Troubled Asset Relief Program should have been filled with securities made up of toxic CRA loans;
● Investors looking to profit should have been buying up properties financed with defaulted CRA loans; and
● Congressional testimony of financial industry executives after the crisis should have spelled out how the CRA was a direct cause, with compelling evidence backing their claims.
Yet none of these things happened. And they should have, if the CRA was at fault....
If that isn’t enough to dismiss the claim, consider this: Where did mortgages, especially subprime mortgages, default in large numbers?
It wasn’t Harlem, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit or any other poor, largely minority urban area covered by the CRA. No, the crisis was worst in Florida, Arizona, Nevada and California. Indeed, the vast majority of the housing collapse took place in the suburbs and exurbs, not the inner cities.
Now consider that much of the rest of the developed world also had a boom and bust in residential real estate that was worse than in the U.S. Oh, right — those countries didn’t have the CRA.
What’s more, many of the lenders that made the subprime loans that contributed so much to the collapse were private non-bank lenders that weren’t covered by the CRA. Almost 400 of these went bankrupt soon after housing began to wobble.
There is simply no credible case that the explosion of subprime mortgage lending was driven by government mandates. It is a lie believed only by the gullible.
"I realize that there is little point in trying to educate you on this topic..."
That's funny.
"but I figure there may be people who follow your blog who are not be immune to understanding"
You presume "understanding" does not include understanding what a chump for the cause you are. Of course, Dan and his troll read these posts and comments, so who knows. But they probably already believe the same crap you do.
"Yes. Lending money to risky borrowers can be a perfectly good idea."
To morons, perhaps, but not to good people of business. It's counter-intuitive at the very least, if not suicidal practice. But then, you may have a different idea of what constitutes a "risky" borrower. The reality involved those with incredibly poor credit, poorly established in employment, low earnings, etc. It's a matter of how likely the debt can be repaid. Raising interest to 1000% is useless if the borrower defaults after the first payment. It's a perfectly moronic idea because of the risk repayment will not occur.
"Subprime mortgage lenders ignored these problems, counting on the fact that real estate prices had always gone up in the past."
That's bullshit. They ignored nothing. They had little choice as government pressures, as well as activist pressure (ACORN), required they lend in spite of those problems.
"Imagine that you owned a Jiffy Lube and the government told you that you had to provide oil changes to needy people for free. How many free oil changes would you provide?"
None. Government has no right to demand I give anything for free. But such demands do not come with penalties (also beyond their authority) which can destroy my ability to do business. Which is what came with CRA and all which followed. The number of bad loans lenders provided was limited to that which was required of them. They did not go "bat shit crazy", even when government forced FANNIE MAY and FREDDIE MACK to buy the crappy loans. You're a moron.
"In order to believe that a government mandate drove subprime mortgage lending, you would have to believe that bankers are absolute fools."
This is abject stupidity! The only fool here is you, to suggest that bankers would be fools NOT to lend to bad risk borrowers. No. That's why they might raise the interest rates really high in the terms, or why they might demand collateral, or why they might insist the property bought with the loan would become the bank's should the borrower default. In each of these cases, the lender has set up the terms to prevent him from suffering any loss (or any great loss) should the borrower fail to pay up. But in its simplest terms, lenders will not lend to those least likely to repay. This basic truth means they aren't absolute fools.
Imagine you have two friends, Rich and Dick. Rich is a highly valued employee of a company which pays him very well. He has an impressive bank account and other means of repaying a loan, but he needs $1000 right now and he comes to you for the loan. You have $1000 you can lend him, but the loss of the money would be a real problem for you. However, due to Rich's character, as well as the other points mentioned, you take the chance confident he'll repay you promptly.
Dick, on the other hand, has a very spotty job history of menial, low paying jobs. He has nothing much in the bank, very little one could call an asset equal to the loan, and his need is the result of irresponsible behavior. You have another $1000 you could lend to him, but have little reason to believe you'll ever see the dough any time soon, if at all, putting you in narrow straights of your own due to the loss of the cash.
If you try to tell me you'd be equally comfortable in risking a $1000 loan to each friend, I'll know you're a liar. This is what banks faced prior to the CRA and because they're not absolute fools, they would never lend to a Dick while knowing a Rich will result in profits to their business, which is the lending of money for profit.
In response to your last, I'll simply provide my own links which don't skip over the parts yours didn't like:
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/faults-community-reinvestment-act-cra-mortgage-defaults/
http://russp.us/subprime.htm
https://www.city-journal.org/html/financial-crisis-and-cra-10483.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/fl-xpm-2011-10-14-fl-cmcol-cra-failure-mishra-1014-20111014-story.html
https://chrischambers.substack.com/p/the-lie-that-george-bush-jr-and-the
https://mises.org/library/cra-scam-and-its-defenders
I know you'll crap on these as "wingnut" sites, because they rebut your crapola. But like your crapola, they don't begin with the lenders and pretend they did it. They begin with the government interference in their affairs which compelled them "or else". But since that government was Dem led, you defend them like all lefties do despite the harm your party causes.
This discussion is over, because your position is partisan hackery rather than a quest for truth.
For someone who doesn't understand how a postmark works, you are surprisingly confident about your understanding of mortgage backed securities.
How leftist like...to use one lie to suggest another. I wonder to whom you given thanks for that dubious skill? No doubt yourself.
Please forgive me for questioning your financial acumen. I have no doubt that a savvy investor like you loaded up on Donald Trump Digital Trading Cards.
Ah...so you're no good at comedy, either. How sad.
Post a Comment