Oh, conservatives, sometimes its like shooting fish in a barrel. Cassy at Wizbang opines that a letter from Chuck Schumer caused the collapse of IndyMac bank. Surely it wasn’t that the financial institution was sitting on top of a house of cards. No sir, the cause of the failure was a letter from… a Democrat!
Somebody on our planet wrote that with a straight face and means it. Crazy.
It’s not Cassy’s opinion, she’s just quoting John Reich, the head of the Office of Thrift Supervision. (Bush appointee, natch.) Difference is it’s Reich’s job to prevent bank failures, while it isn’t Cassy’s (or Schumer’s for that matter.)
Cassey is just faithfully repeating the talking point handed down by Bush through Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.
Cassey shouldn’t be chastised here, but given a nice little gold star for being such a good little robot. (Perhaps a gold star and some WD-40 to keep the joints lubed.)
Er, Schumer pretty clearly caused the run on the bank that took it down. He certainly isn’t responsible for the shaky lending practices that made them vulnerable in the first place, and perhaps the bank would have failed over a longer period of time without his help, but he isn’t exactly a saint here.
“Er, Schumer pretty clearly caused the run on the bank that took it down.”
Really? So the problem wasn’t the bank’s solvency, but people knowing about the problem with the bank’s solvency.
Typical Republican. Don’t blame the people at fault, blame those who caught them.
Haplo: Er, Schumer pretty clearly caused the run on the bank that took it down. He certainly isn’t responsible for the shaky lending practices that made them vulnerable in the first place
Yes. It was the little boy’s fault for pointing out the Emperor had no clothes. Everything was just fine until that little punk opened his mouth.
Or, as one of the commenter pointed out on whizbang, the Titanic disaster is clearly the fault of the first crewman who shouted “Look out! Iceberg!”
Typical Republican. Don’t blame the people at fault, blame those who caught them.
The Republican philosophy in a nut shell. The crime isn’t in breaking eh law. The crime is in getting caught.
There is just something about the special brand of idiocy permeating this place that brightens my day.
Stroke, you numb twit, what do you think would happen to ANY bank if all the depositors tried to withdraw their funds at one time?
No bank on earth can satisy all their depositors at once. That’s the business model that keeps every bank running.
Best way to explain it may be with a quote from Oliver’s Most Liberal Movie Ever Made:
“No, but you . . . you . . . you’re thinking of this place all
wrong. As if I had the money back in a safe. The money’s not
here. Your money’s in Joe’s house . . .(to one of the men)
. . . right next to yours. And in the Kennedy house, and Mrs.
Macklin’s house, and a hundred others. Why, you’re lending them
the money to build, and then, they’re going to pay it back to you as best they can. Now what are you going to do? Foreclose on them?”
Nobody happens to mention the – oh what’s that pesky damn word? oh, yeah – FACT that in the 11 days after Chuckie shot off his big mouth depositors withdrew $1.3 BILLION…but, no, no, there’s no cause and effect here…good thing it wasn’t Senator Shelby dropping sensitive information in the media, or boy, wouldn’t your shorts be in a twist, huh?
Hey, why don’t we blame the panicky folks who pulled out their money? i mean really. What a bunch of whiners.
Well, Matt you are about the biggest jag-off I’ve read yet on Olivers’ little site here. What is it about truth that you 29%ers hanging on to the worst asshole to be President in our history don’t like? The 1.3 Billion you reference was less than 5% of their deposits. The banks etc. are supposed to be liquid enough or have Grade A collateral enough to withstand a run of this puny percentage. If they need cash they can use that Grade A collateral to get more from the Fed and other banks. Now do you get it you stupid asshole? Their assets/collateral were mostly made up of shit loans nobody would take as collateral. They were supposed to be highly educated managers of finance and not make shit loans but their own greed said screw it, if it blows up we’ll stick the FDIC and or taxpayers with the bill. You dumb ass.
The 1.3 Billion you reference was less than 5% of their deposits. The banks etc. are supposed to be liquid enough or have Grade A collateral enough to withstand a run of this puny percentage.
Not even that, the reserve requirement in the U.S. is 10%. So if they didn’t have enough reserves to pay back 5% of the total deposits, they were in violation of federal law.
Matt, you just proved my point. The bank didn’t have enough liquid assets to cover this run and that caused it to go under. The regulation is in place to stop that from happening. Pointing out they were not following the regulation is not what caused it to go under. Not following the regulation in the first place is what caused it to go under.
“Stroke, you numb twit, what do you think would happen to ANY bank if all the depositors tried to withdraw their funds at one time?”
This didn’t happened here, you liar. It was only $1.3 billion, which may seem like a lot (and it is), but they had more than $19 billion in total deposits and $32 billion in total assets. A bank this size should be able to cover that ‘run’ with ease.
And why did so many depositors withdraw their funds? Because the bank didn’t have enough liquidity to survive. Schumer didn’t make up that fact, he merely pointed it out.
The fact remains, they didn’t have enough liquid assets to cover their deposits. This is what caused the bank to go under. NOTHING ELSE.
“Nobody happens to mention the – oh what’s that pesky damn word? oh, yeah – FACT that in the 11 days after Chuckie shot off his big mouth depositors withdrew $1.3 BILLION…but, no, no, there’s no cause and effect here…good thing it wasn’t Senator Shelby dropping sensitive information in the media, or boy, wouldn’t your shorts be in a twist, huh?”
You talk about cause and effect, but you can’t seem to figure out what the initial cause was. The initial cause wasn’t Chuck Schumer’s letter, it was IndyMac’s lack of liquid assets needed to cover its deposits.
So what did we learn from this exchange? Well, we learned Matt doesn’t know what he’s talking about. In Matt’s mind, the buck stops at the nearest convenient Democrat. We also learned that in Matt’s mind, breaking the law isn’t the problem, but pointing out when someone does is.
“Not even that, the reserve requirement in the U.S. is 10%. So if they didn’t have enough reserves to pay back 5% of the total deposits, they were in violation of federal law.”
Exactly. They were breaking the law, which is what caused them to go under. Pointing out they were breaking the law had nothing to do with it. In fact, not pointing out they were breaking the law would have meant Chuck Schumer wasn’t doing his job.
>Yes. It was the little boy’s fault for pointing out the Emperor had no clothes. Everything was just fine until that little punk opened his mouth.
Are you serious? What do you think would happen if Ben Bernake gave a speech where in the end he said, “Oh, by the way, you all know Bank of America, right? It probably needs some more regulatory scrutiny.” There would be a run on the bank’s reserves by its depositors. Theres a good reason that government officials are supposed to keep their traps shut about stuff like this, and its because they can cause a panic, even if the bank in question doesn’t have all that serious of a problem. Is there any particular reason that Schumer couldn’t have done what he wanted without going public? As a senator, he’s not exactly.. powerless.
>Typical Republican. Don’t blame the people at fault, blame those who caught them.
Brush up on your reading comprehension please. (Though this is CSS, to be expected.)
“He certainly *isn’t* responsible”
As in, Schumer is not, repeat, not responsible for the bad practices of the bank. That would be the fault of the bank officers themsevles. All I’m pointing out is that Schumer doesn’t smell like roses in this one. He could have pursued whatever issues he saw with the bank without causing a run on it. (Where, by the way, did I ever say I am a Republican? You shouldn’t make stuff up CS. Though, again, it is you.)
“Are you serious? What do you think would happen if Ben Bernake gave a speech where in the end he said, ‘Oh, by the way, you all know Bank of America, right? It probably needs some more regulatory scrutiny.’ There would be a run on the bank’s reserves by its depositors.”
And in this case if IndyMac wasn’t breaking the law, then a $1.3 billion run would not have caused it to go under. Under the law they needed at least $1.9 billion in liquid assets, yet they were more than 30% short.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the bank was BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW!
Don’t you get it? IndyMac was in criminal violation of banking regulations. You can’t expect someone not to go public with that information, because it is in the public good. What would have happened if they didn’t go under now, but instead added a couple billion to their deposits before it collapsed? The amount the general public would have lost would have gone up. And if IndyMac’s deposits never went up, then they were fucked regardless.
“Brush up on your reading comprehension please. (Though this is CSS, to be expected.)”
It’s funny that you keep insulting me, yet I am constantly proven right.
“As in, Schumer is not, repeat, not responsible for the bad practices of the bank. That would be the fault of the bank officers themsevles. All I’m pointing out is that Schumer doesn’t smell like roses in this one.”
The only people complaining about Schumer’s actions are people like you. Those who think breaking the law wasn’t the problem, talking about it was.
Again, if the bank wasn’t breaking the law, then they would still be in business, even if ever other variable was still the same (Chuck Schumer’s actions, the run on the bank, etc.)
I see it has gotten through your head that i’m not trying to blame the entire thing on Schumer. Good job figuring that one out.
So now you are shifting gears to claiming that IndyMac was in violation of fractional reserve requirements the whole time and Schumer was merely pointing that out. Except Schumer’s letter said nothing about that – he was urging regulators to take a more active involvement in the bank because it wasn’t looking good. (To paraphrase.) He wasn’t even talking about whether they were fulfilling their fractional reserve requirements. So then, CSS, since you made this claim, tell me – how long was IndyMac in violation of its reserve requirements? Months? Years? Or had they very recently hit a tough spot where the reserves had dipped below the 10% mark? Being below the reserve mark doesn’t mean the bank is somehow criminally negligent – it means they need to drum up cash to get back to that point, and its entirely possible that they will have a hard time doing so. Especially if potential lenders are worried about their liquidity, when they are given a hint by a certain attention seeking US senator.
>The only people complaining about Schumer’s actions are people like you. Those who think breaking the law wasn’t the problem, talking about it was.
Well then I’m in good company:
http://www.ots.treas.gov/docs/7/778029.html
“As a result of an OTS examination that began in January 2008, the OTS deemed IndyMac to be in troubled condition. An overwhelming majority of problem institutions are able to successfully modify their operations and business plans, work closely with their regulator and eventually return to a healthy condition.”
“IndyMac had reacted to market conditions and OTS concerns in November 2007 by changing its operations and business plan to build a foundation for recovery. IndyMac was actively seeking to arrange a significant capital infusion or find a buyer. The recent release of the senator’s letter undermined the public confidence essential for a financial institution and took away the time IndyMac needed to pursue a recovery.”
Yeah CSS. I eagerly await your explanation of why those OTS people don’t know what they are talking about, especially compared to uber internet commenter CS Strowbridge.
>It’s funny that you keep insulting me, yet I am constantly proven right.
I will say, you are always good for a laugh: “constantly proven right”. Still with the winning in your head thing I see. I’m glad it works for you.
Haplo, quoting the department that first accused Schumer of triggering IndyMac’s collapse is hardly conclusive of anything. Does the phrase CYA mean anything to you? The OTS and its director John Reich have every incentive to find a scapegoat for their own failed oversight of IndyMac.
Congratulations, though, you’ve just completed a classic conservative rhetorical circle. You’ll be in the troll pantheon before long!
“I see it has gotten through your head that i’m not trying to blame the entire thing on Schumer. Good job figuring that one out.”
You are not the only one in this thread. Others have made that claim.
By the way, trying to claim the bank would have been fine if Schumer had not mention its solvency problem is blaming Schumer. And I am saying, just to emphasize here, Schumer is 100% NOT to blame.
“So now you are shifting gears…”
Liar.
“…tell me – how long was IndyMac in violation of its reserve requirements? Months? Years? Or had they very recently hit a tough spot where the reserves had dipped below the 10% mark?”
Dipped below? There were in violation by more than 30%. That’s one hell of a dip.
“Yeah CSS. I eagerly await your explanation of why those OTS people don’t know what they are talking about, especially compared to uber internet commenter CS Strowbridge.”
Fafaroo already beat me to it.
To recap, John Reich was supposed to make sure IndyMac never got into this problem in the first place. When IndyMac failed, his ass was on the line. Of course he is going to blame Schumer. He is going to blame the person who caught him not doing his job. This is very common behavior.
These cons get more ridiculous by the day. Let’s pretend that Schumer hadn’t pointed out that IndyMac was in trouble. Do you think it’s a good idea that a bank can’t cover even 5% of its deposits? At what point with write downs does it become 3%? Or 0% even?
Once again, Bush appointees failure to enforce the law caused pain and suffering for regular Americans. And cons don’t care, instead looking for ways to blame Democrats. Heck of a job, cons.
Lol. Lets see, John Reich, who has banking credentials that stretch back to the 1980’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Reich) and the regulators who’s job it is to regulate the banking industry say Schumer should have kept his mouth shut while they tried to fix it. As they point out, such things take time.
Schumer, a politician and law school grad, whos only experience with banking is being on the banking and finance committees, says they should have prevented this from happening in the first place.
..And yet you guys give Schumer’s claims more credence, why? Because he has a D after his name? He has more experience in the banking industry than Reich? (Ha!)
>The OTS and its director John Reich have every incentive to find a scapegoat for their own failed oversight of IndyMac.
Oh I see. Schumer is a but a selfless public servant and he wouldn’t try to scapegoat the OTS for his own stupidity. I’d say Schumer is the one doing CYA here, he knows he caused the run on the bank that took it over the edge, so of course he’s going to deflect and say that regulators should have fixed it before he opened his mouth. I imagine we’ll have to disagree on this one, suffice it to say that I give a wee bit more credence to OTS and people with experience in the banking industry than a politician.
>By the way, trying to claim the bank would have been fine if Schumer had not mention its solvency problem is blaming Schumer. And I am saying, just to emphasize here, Schumer is 100% NOT to blame.
And you still can’t read CSS. I never said the bank would have for sure been fine. I said it *could* have been fine. It had already attracted the attention of OTS back in January, who were engaged with trying to right the ship. What, you think that happens instantly? We won’t know whether the bank would have been ok though, because Schumer caused the run on it that took it over the edge. For all we know, it would have failed anyway. That doesn’t change the stupidity of Schumer’s move.
I’m amazed you guys would defend him though, especially since the only ‘charge’ against him is that it was stupid to do what he did publically. Using your logic, public officials should publically finger any bank, for any negative sounding reason, at any time. Then, if any of those banks fail in the subsequent run, you can cluck cluck about how the bank was having problems anyway and that official was just speaking the truth. I’m sure you would say that even if the public official was an ‘R’, and it was your bank. Right?
Haplo, are you trying to suggest that OTC has been just as aggressive and diligent under Bush as they were previously? Are you really trying to tell us that given Bush’s record of censoring, distorting, destroying documents, destroying people, torturing, stonewalling etc., that somehow suddenly they developed a conscience and were scared off by some bad looking numbers? Nearly every agency under their control has come under fire for fraud at unprecedented levels. But supposedly John Reich and OTC were the shining pure bastion of truth. I suggest you listen to the previous Comptroller of the Currency who was not a Bush appointee. You should also find books about our banking and credit fiasco written in the last 10 years. Economists have been warning about lax enforcement for sometime now coupled with being aghast that we eliminated most of the separations and protections to our system that were set in place after the last total fiasco of 1929. We do not have the ability to take on trillions and trillions of additonal debt at this time and still float this economy. The devaluation of the dollar will be catastrophic. We are already at the point where nearly 50% of the tax revenue generated in this country goes to pay just the annual interest on the debt according to the Comptroller of the Currency. Do you truly think we can go much further? Most people know that we cannot. We cannot double our debt to save Fannie Mae, investment banks, consumer banks, insurance companies etc. They made bad moves and the market is to weed them out. People who suffered from fraud should get justice and those who committed the fraud should stand trial. Instead we are pouring money out through the Fed, backed by taxpayers, to companies and institutions that at the very least were horribly negligent and we’re not even making them change management. Don’t you think this is about more than Indymac Bank?
Lets see, John Reich, who has banking credentials that stretch back to the 1980’s and the regulators who’s job it is to regulate the banking industry say Schumer should have kept his mouth shut while they tried to fix it.
Haplo, note the highhlighted “and” above as well as the plural “regulators”. The way you are using them you seem to be saying that Reich, veteran banker, AND the OTS have both said the same thing about Schumer. Of course, since Reich is the director of the OTS, they pretty much amount to the same thing.
So are you suggesting that you have two expert opinions here or one?
Haplo9: …tell me – how long was IndyMac in violation of its reserve requirements? Months? Years? Or had they very recently hit a tough spot where the reserves had dipped below the 10% mark?
CSS: Dipped below? There were in violation by more than 30%. That’s one hell of a dip.
Yes, but you didn’t really address the question (a fair one) actually asked, did you? How long had they been in that dip? If, for example, it had been deeper and they were working their way out, then Schumer’s public statement made their recovery harder and, conceivably, ended up costing the taxpayers when it is possible that given more time the bank could have continued to work to rectify the situation.
Note, I’m not saying it’s Schumer’s fault. But he was, to some degree, a participant in bringing about or hastening the bank’s failure. How much? “Would the institution have failed without the deposit run?” Mr. Reich asked reporters. “We’ll never know the answer to that question.” But to some degree.
Haplo9: Lets see, John Reich, who has banking credentials that stretch back to the 1980’s and the regulators who’s job it is to regulate the banking industry say Schumer should have kept his mouth shut while they tried to fix it. As they point out, such things take time.
Schumer, a politician and law school grad, whos only experience with banking is being on the banking and finance committees
Note emphasizing of Reich’s experience and downplaying Schumer’s. What if I were to point out that Reich had been involved in national level banking only since 2001 when he joined the FDIC while Schumer has been in national office since 1981?
I have considerably more respect for the opinions of those who aren’t so obviously trying to distort things to support those opinions.
fafaroo -
Just one. The assumption I’m making is that Reich is not speaking only for himself here, that there are other regulators at OTS that share his opinion. If you have other expert opinions that say that what Schumer did was a good idea, by all means share them.
Chuck:
>Haplo, are you trying to suggest that OTC has been just as aggressive and diligent under Bush as they were previously?
(Thank you, btw, for correcting my usage, for some reason I was thinking of it as OTS.) I agree with some of what you are saying, but none of it is particularly relevant to my claim, which is very simple (and limited): Chuck Schumer was stupid to make public the comments that caused a run on the bank. That’s it. I’m not trying to claim that OTC is more or less aggressive than it has been in the past. (I don’t possess the expertise to make that claim.) I’m not making some big meta point about the Bush administration. Schumer caused a run on the bank, that was stupid, and it doesn’t matter whether you are an R or D. I see no reason why he couldn’t have pursued his concerns in a non public manner.
>Note emphasizing of Reich’s experience and downplaying Schumer’s. What if I were to point out that Reich had been involved in national level banking only since 2001 when he joined the FDIC while Schumer has been in national office since 1981?
Fair enough. Lets assume then that both Reich and Schumer are trying to salvage what they can out of the situation by blaming each other. That said, I think Reich has a better end of the argument for two reasons:
1. Schumer’s comments clearly caused a run on the bank. I think we can all agree that runs on banks aren’t a good thing.
2. Schumer’s comments were public for no good reason that I can see. Maybe I’m missing something though.
Haplo: Lets assume then that both Reich and Schumer are trying to salvage what they can out of the situation by blaming each other.
Let’s not. Why not assume each is just playing a round of CYA? Why assume the worst just because that makes it easier to spout out unfounded speculation as fact? Or did I just answer my own question?
Haplo: I think we can all agree that runs on banks aren’t a good thing.
There you go again, just declaring the position of everyone else because it’s the only way to support your view.
Sean:
Sorry, I should have said “Lets assume, for the sake of argument.” I don’t find Schumer more credible on banking and finance than John Reich, because he has never worked in the industry. You, obviously, do find Schumer credible because he was a part of various Senate committees. (Yes, it would be fair to say that I’m deeply cynical about the idea that experience as a politician grants you anything resembling practical knowledge about how an industry actually works.) We’ll have to agree to disagree apparently, though I find it very unlikely that if Schumer was an R you’d be granting him the same amount of deference. My point was even granting your premise that Schumer’s experience were to make his claims as credible as Reich’s, Reich has the better of the argument because of the two points I brought up.
>There you go again, just declaring the position of everyone else because it’s the only way to support your view.
Groan. Fine Sean. Please tell me why runs on banks are a good thing, or, at least, aren’t a bad thing. Also please tell me why it was necessary for Schumer to go public.
Haplo9: You, obviously, do find Schumer credible because he was a part of various Senate committees.
Missed my point and provided another example of it at the same time. I do NOT assume Schumer is more credible and you are wrong to assume I do. I have given no opinion on either side over the other. I was pointing out only that you provided lopsided info and (not unique here in this regard) declared what other’s positions are because that “supported” the view you want to take.
It’s making the evidence fit the conclusion.
We’ll have to agree to disagree apparently, though I find it very unlikely that if Schumer was an R you’d be granting him the same amount of deference.
I agree, we’ll disagree. But I point out that while you may find it “unlikely” the fact is that many of my posts here (particularly recently) have been critical of OW, Democrats, etc. and supportive of Jay, McCain and some on the right. I would, in fact, grant a Repub Schumer exactly the same amount of credit (I don’t grant deference to any politician) if folks tried to say that commenting publicly on the situation is what caused it.
Sean:
Er, you started off the thread on a pretty poor footing to be complaining about being portrayed as a Democratic partisan:
>The Republican philosophy in a nut shell. The crime isn’t in breaking eh law. The crime is in getting caught.
Thats a pretty trite generalization, and the only way I can see it logically follow mine is if you misread my comment to be claiming that Schumer was responsible for the whole mess. Or maybe you really believe that, in which case let me offer a similarly worthless generalization: The Democratic philosophy in a nut shell – The desire for totalitarian power hiding under a veneer of feel good nonsense. Terribly insightful isn’t it.
>It’s making the evidence fit the conclusion.
Pointing out that one party has real world banking experience while the other does not is rearranging evidence? I will cop to giving Schumer’s experience somewhat short shrift, but that is more because I have no respect for a politicians experience on a Senate committee than some sort of dastardly desire to rearrange facts. To use an analogy, you don’t ask a hospital administrator for medical advice, you ask an actual doctor who does the job. Similarly, you don’t ask a politician who resides on a committee related to the industry about banking, you ask a banker who has actually done the job of banking. One plays politics for a living, the other has actually done something of relevance.
Are you even interested in discussing the merits of Schumer’s actions, or are you just being argumentative? In either case, time for me to go enjoy the sun while its out. The last word is yours.
“Lol. Lets see, John Reich, who…”
Is the man who is supposed to regulate the industry but failed at his job.
You are taking the word of the man who is supposed to prevent collapses like this from happening. He was caught not doing his job, and he is blaming the person who caught him. Yet you see no reason to doubt his claims that Schumer is to blame. Experience and qualifications mean little when covering your ass.
“..And yet you guys give Schumer’s claims more credence, why? Because…”
I’ve taken economics courses in university and I know the negative consequences of not having enough liquid assets to cover a minimum level of deposits. There’s a reason regulations are in place.
“And you still can’t read CSS. I never said the bank would have for sure been fine. I said it *could* have been fine.”
And it could have been much, much worse. Now let’s get the fuck out of fairyland and deal with the real world.
CSS: “Dipped below? There were in violation by more than 30%. That’s one hell of a dip.”
Sean: “Yes, but you didn’t really address the question (a fair one) actually asked, did you?”
I know you don’t like me, that much is obvious from your actions, but try and keep up with the debate.
Haplo9 speculated about the length of time IndyMac was in violation WITHOUT OFFERING ANT FUCKING PROOF. Now you two think I should do the research and prove him wrong.
Fuck that.
His claim. He should provide the evidence.
Haplo, you keep calling a withdrawal of about 5% a “run” on the bank. I don’t agree that this puny amount of withdrawal constituted a run. Furthermore for the Feds to get all apeshit to come in and take over the bank they were nervous as hell at an amount less than that 5%. Maybe around 3% and rising Indymac pissed their pants and called Daddy at OTS. If a bank can’t handle a demand over time of 3% to 5% of it’s deposits then it is pretty well going to be hell to convince investors to give them more money for their shit collateral. Jon Reich being a “banker” doesn’t cut shit with me. He watched and did squat while many other “bankers” loaned out trillions of dollars on bullshit commercial deals that were hype beyond belief. Building millions and millions of square feet of office buildings even though there was no market for them. Only tax subsidies and glorified bullshit from the developers seemed to be enough for the “bankers”. Millions of homes built on hype and overinflated prices. Prices inflated knowingly and purposely in conjunction with appraisers, realtors and “bankers”. “Bankers” loaned out money as fast as they could to people with bad credit histories and little chance of repaying the loans successfully. Some of the buyers share in creating this problem but to tell me that someone is trustworthy because he is a “banker” is blue sky bullshit at its best.
Haplo9: The Democratic philosophy in a nut shell – The desire for totalitarian power hiding under a veneer of feel good nonsense. Terribly insightful isn’t it.
Not particularly. But (obviously I would have thought) neither was my original note about the Repubs. Nor should my making it have been construed as defacto proof that I support the Dems. I’ve certainly described them in a nutshell as spineless political idiots.
CSS: I know you don’t like me, that much is obvious from your actions,
Actually, my opinion of you is pretty close to neutral. I disagree, often, with how you present your case and think you occasionally hide behind complaints that the other guy isn’t proving proof (something you’ve failed to do yourself at times) rather than address their points, but I actually agree with your views more often than not. But don’t let that stop you from telling me what I believe.
Css: Haplo9 speculated about the length of time IndyMac was in violation WITHOUT OFFERING ANT FUCKING PROOF. Now you two think I should do the research and prove him wrong.
Actually, no he wasn’t. He was responding to YOUR comment that IndyMac was already violating the regulations and asking YOU to support that by, essentially, providing proof of how long that had been the case. You even quoted his question in your reply and then didn’t answer the question you were quoting.
CSS: “I know you don’t like me, that much is obvious from your actions,”
Sean: “Actually, my opinion of you is pretty close to neutral.”
Bullshit. You go after me for things others do. That is evidence of bias.
CSS: “Haplo9 speculated about the length of time IndyMac was in violation WITHOUT OFFERING ANT FUCKING PROOF. Now you two think I should do the research and prove him wrong.”
Sean: “Actually, no he wasn’t. He was responding to YOUR comment that IndyMac was already violating the regulations and asking YOU to support that by, essentially, providing proof of how long that had been the case.”
You can be a fucking idiot sometimes.
He never challenged the fact that IndyMac was in violation of the regulations. Anyone who can do basic math knows they were.
He threw up a smokescreen by speculating that they might have been in violation for a short time. However, he offered no proof. He didn’t even offer weak evidence. He merely suggested it was a possibility.
I DON’T HAVE TO FUCKING ADDRESS PURE SPECULATION!
I don’t have to offer proof that his speculation is wrong when he has offered none that his speculation is right.
In other words, Haplo9 dodged my point and in doing so did exactly what you claimed I did. And now you are attacking me for something he did.
Again, further evidence of a bias.
Now, you can either admit you were wrong, or this can become another ‘per 100,000′ debate.
CSS: Bullshit. You go after me for things others do. That is evidence of bias.
In terms you seem to best understand: Bullshit, Liar. I have commented on the postings of others as well (one need only look at other postings I’ve made in this thread re: Haplo9 to see what a liar you are) and have frequently specifically NOT commented on a posting of yours because you’re just not that worth getting into it with.
Css: He threw up a smokescreen by speculating that they might have been in violation for a short time. However, he offered no proof. He didn’t even offer weak evidence. He merely suggested it was a possibility.
I DON’T HAVE TO FUCKING ADDRESS PURE SPECULATION!
Oh, good lord. He asked a question. As you said, he was speculating. Do we now have to reach the CSS-required burden of “proof” before a question can be asked?
And for someone who supposedly doesn’t have to address such speculation, you spend a considerable commentary doing just that.
CSS: Again, further evidence of a bias.
Far be if from me to try to talk you out of your persecution mindset, but not pointing out every single example of something isn’t necessarily an indication of bias. More likely an indicator that a point need not be belabored.
But, given your own bias against me I wouldn’t expect you to ever consider that I might have a better idea of what I think than you.
OK, not going to hijack this thread and further than this. You can have the last word, CSS. Done with you again.
CSS: Bullshit. You go after me for things others do. That is evidence of bias.
Sean: “In terms you seem to best understand: Bullshit, Liar. I have commented on the postings of others as well…”
You attacked me for doing exactly what Haplo did. That is evidence of bias. The fact that you also responded to other posts is immaterial because you never attacked Haplo for doing what you claim I am doing. And this isn’t the only example, you did the exact same thing in “Cons Finally Admit What They Believe” thread.
Sean: “Oh, good lord. He asked a question. As you said, he was speculating. Do we now have to reach the CSS-required burden of ‘proof’ before a question can be asked?”
He didn’t merely ask a question, he raised the question to make a point. If you can’t figure that out, you shouldn’t be part of this debate. You can’t handle this debate.
And attacking me for the “CSS-required burden of ‘proof’” is further evidence of bias. Any unbiased person knows the nature of the claim determines the level of proof needed. If you say something happened at least once, you need to show at least one time it happened. If you say something happens nearly every time, you have to show it happens nearly every time. You can’t come up with two examples and think you’ve fulfilled your burden of proof.
CSS: “Again, further evidence of a bias.”
Sean: “Far be if from me to try to talk you out of your persecution mindset, but not pointing out every single example of something isn’t necessarily an indication of bias. More likely an indicator that a point need not be belabored.”
And when two people do it only pointing out one person over and over again? Haplo did it first, but you attack me, even though I’m not the one ignoring the point being made.
Same thing in the “Cons Finally Admit What They Believe” thread. Jay does something, I point it out, you attack me for doing what Jay did.
Sean: “OK, not going to hijack this thread and further than this. You can have the last word, CSS. Done with you again.”
Translation: I was caught making an ass of myself, and now I’m going to run away and pretend it never happened.
Face it, you can’t defend your actions in this thread, so you are going to run away.
Are you sure you are not a Republican?
I want to emphasize this point, because it is the key to Sean’s argument, so I’m going to put it in a separate post…
Haplo9: “…tell me – how long was IndyMac in violation of its reserve requirements? Months? Years? Or had they very recently hit a tough spot where the reserves had dipped below the 10% mark?”
Anyone who thinks Haplo9 was merely requesting information and was not make a point is a moron. Sorry to be blunt, but it is the truth. He was clearly making the point that Schumer didn’t need to raise the alarm, since the problem might have been very recent and therefore not an issue. I disagree with that point, but that is immaterial here.
Secondly, I don’t need to come up with evidence with regards to how long IndyMac was in violation of banking regulations, because Haplo9 never provided any evidence. You can’t use speculation to force the other side to do your research for you.
These are two simple points that no unbiased individual can disagree with.
CSS: Translation: I was caught making an ass of myself, and now I’m going to run away and pretend it never happened.
Providing yet another example of CSS knowing what I think better than I do, despite my specifically saying what I think.
CSS: Are you sure you are not a Republican?
Yes. I’m positive. But don’t let that stop you from telling me I’m wrong.
CSS: “Translation: I was caught making an ass of myself, and now I’m going to run away and pretend it never happened.”
Sean: “Providing yet another example of CSS knowing what I think better than I do, despite my specifically saying what I think.”
Actions speak louder than words. And when what you do is different from what you say…
By the way, you completely ignored all of my points. Everything. Is this your way of admitting you were wrong? Or do you still think I’m the one that needs to do the research to counter someone else’s baseless speculation?
“Lol. Lets see, John Reich, who has banking credentials that stretch back to the 1980’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Reich) and the regulators who’s job it is to regulate the banking industry say Schumer should have kept his mouth shut while they tried to fix it. As they point out, such things take time.”
I should also point out that John Reich deregulated the industry. So him blaming someone else, anyone else, is hardly an unbiased, expert opinion. He is absolutely to blame here.
Let’s review:
John Reich, partisan fox guarding henhouse.
Henhouse found empty. Fox says ducks did it.
Wow.
elspi: “Let’s review:
John Reich, partisan fox guarding henhouse.
Henhouse found empty. Fox says ducks did it.
Wow.”
You forgot…
People defend fox.
Attack duck for quacking.
Blogger ate my link,
It was Krugman showing that Reich was a lobbyist for the banking industry just 5 years ago. Go to his blog at nyt to see the damning photo.
Oliver could I have my link back?
“Oliver could I have my link back?”
I can’t post links either. Maybe there’s a secret code you need to know.
I just cut the “h t t p … w w w” part of the URL and post the rest. People can cut and paste.
On a side note, Krugman rocks.