Salon’s Joan Walsh:
As always, I thought Obama took too long to make his points tonight. (He averaged seven minutes per question, according to MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.)
I’ve previously complained about this with President Obama, especially in the earlier Democratic debates where he was one of about 8 people on stage. But this style of giving long, complex responses is as much a part of Obama’s presentation as glib catch phrases were for Bush, or personal stories were for Clinton. He’s not a soundbite guy, and while it may be a temporary thing – America doesn’t want to hear soundbites at this point.
As Jon Stewart said a few months ago: Barack Obama is treating the American people like adults.
I have absolutely no problem with this whatsoever. We just had the Fox News president, give me the fucking NPR president.
“As Jon Stewart said a few months ago: Barack Obama is treating the American people like adults.”
And this is upsetting the press.
Says a lot of about the media, doesn’t it.
“put on a flight suit”-Chris Matthews
When the substance contains large doses of bullshit…
AP: About Obama’s “no pork” assertion…
Obama presser: Does Obama pay attention?
From hope to doomsday
Impressed Me Not
Random Thoughts: By Thomas Sowell
Stimulus: A history of folly
…make the narrative about style.
“Meandering” is not a style. There’s a difference between giving a long, involved, nuanced answer and rattling off boilerplate that may or may not be relevant to the question asked.
For all the partisans who think he either “knocked it out of the park” or “stunk up the joint” … stop. He did neither. It was an average press conference, nothing more.
Though, given the expectations built up by this Administration, “ordinary” quickly becomes disapointing. It’s hard to be the one’s we’ve been waiting for when you’re declaring amnesia (the Biden question), incompetence (truth commissions), passing the buck (”I don’t want to steal Geitner’s thunder”) or flat-out evading (Helen Thomas’s warmongering). That’s what every other politician does. And that’s not what America was sold in November.
It wasn’t meandering. It was a sober discussion of the important stuff that’s affecting our nation. You’d hate anything he did, so give it up.
Seriously, Oliver -
you realize that every time you swing that club you’re hitting yourself between the eyes, right?
People who buy, sell and traded stocks aren’t as easily impressed by Obama’s speaking style as the liberal blogs are…
Wall Street moves lower as government unveils plan to support banking system
DJIA down bouncing around either side of -300 as I type this. Crap sandwich not selling too well right now. Those traders certainly aren’t the ‘patriots’ Susan Collins and Arlen Specter are according to Obama.
Ms. Walsh seems to be short of attention. She’s got a short little span of attention.
Can we call her Al?
If you must know, I didn’t “hate” everything. I was pretty pumped that he’s finally setting pre-conditions for talks with Iran, at least according to his answer last night.
Matt621: “you realize that every time you swing that club you’re hitting yourself between the eyes, right?”
Why the fuck should we listen to you? Seriously?
This remind me of the joke about president Bush Wolfowitz once said…
“…the President and the Pope are on a boat, and the Pope’s hat blows off. The President says, no, I’ll get it for you and walks across the top of the waves, picks up the hat and walks back across the top of the waves, hands the hat to the Pope and the next day the headlines are, ‘President Bush can’t swim.’”
President Bush nearly choked to death on a pretzel, yet morons like you and SaveFarris think he ca ‘walk on water’ and the press just didn’t treat him fairly.
You’ve shown your opinion is worthless, and to treat it as if it wasn’t would be an insult to intelligent people everywhere.
Dennis says: “People who buy, sell and traded stocks aren’t as easily impressed by Obama’s speaking style as the liberal blogs are…”
You are too stupid to live. One of these days your lower intestine if going to shoot up through your body and strangle your brain. Just a word of caution.
‘300 point loss, must be because of Obama.’
Couldn’t be because of continued job losses.
Hell, why not blame the ‘compromise’ stimulus package that is much weaker than needed.
No, that would be smart, and you just can’t do that.
For goodness sakes, amigo.
How to link in html
Since you put ‘walk on water’ in quotes, I’m SURE you can find an example. Right? Cause if not, your strawman is pretty weak.
Thanks Parthy. Not blaming it on this small box, but I do it by typing in text longhand, and if I type too quickly and miss a character it doesn’t go, even though below it looks like it’s ok.
Stocks fall as gov’t unveils financial plan
The stock mkt didn’t start diving today right off the bat or immediately following any economic numbers, as the sinking ship C.S.S. Strowbridge obtusely alleges; it fell precipitously after the ‘If he were a Republican he’d be behind bars’ Sen. Christopher Dodd started yapping his trap and then a lot more more after the “If he were nominated in a Republican administration he’d never be Treasury Secretary’ Timothy Geithner added insult to Dodd’s injury.
Since you put ‘walk on water’ in quotes, I’m SURE you can find an example. Right? Cause if not, your strawman is pretty weak.—SaveFarris
C’mon, SaveFarris, you’re asking Strowbridge to do something he always demands of other people. You know homey don’t (and won’t) play dat game.
And C.S.Strowbridge, using strawman tactics? Heavens no.
Since you put ‘walk on water’ in quotes, I’m SURE you can find an example. Right?
Because shut up, that’s why!
Of course, you could also write, “Stocks Fall As I Took A Dump This Morning”. You guys gonna keep this up for the entire next 8 years?
OMG HotAir and Thomas Sowell didn’t like it? Oh noes!!!!
If stock market performance is the measure of a president’s skill, than George W. Bush is _literally_ the worst president ever. No argument possible, just fact.
Thanks for playing, Dennis.
Back to Oliver’s original point, the speech last night was like a breath of fresh air to listen to. He did a really decent job of answering questions, giving more detail as it was warranted. I’m surprised that nobody’s mentioned when fox’s major minor tried to practice some of that good ol’ gotcha journalism about Biden.
After the news conference, all I could think about is how much crap the president has to deal with so early in his presidency. We are in really tenuous times, indeed.
SaveFarris says: “Since you put ‘walk on water’ in quotes, I’m SURE you can find an example. Right? Cause if not, your strawman is pretty weak.”
Double quote (”) indicate quotations.
Single quotes(’) indicate paraphrasing.
Unless you are quoting a quote, in which case you use single quotes within the double quotes.
Please remember this for later.
Dennis: “And C.S.Strowbridge, using strawman tactics? Heavens no.”
SaveFarris and Dennis not understanding the rules of grammar? Heavens no.
@Dennis:
Just for clarity, you linked us to a story that ties today’s market performance to the bank bailout plan. That’s a different thing altogether from the stimulus bill.
CSS can’t even find a quote that comes close to ‘paraphrasing’ his claim. Color me surprised…
Oliver, is the President (and by proxy, the Treasury Secretary) responsible for the economy: yes or no? If no, why was your answer different over the previous 8 years? Thanks for taking my question.
Of course, you could also write, “Stocks Fall As I Took A Dump This Morning”. You guys gonna keep this up for the entire next 8 years?– Oliver Willis
Not if the market turns around, Oliver. Check for yourself on any financial website or blog and don’t take my word for it, not that you would anyway, but pretty much concensus on Wall Street is that the Spendulus crap sandwich is not going over too well in the investor community. A now 337 point drop on a slow news day economic numbers- wise, when the Dow average stands at 8,000, is not your typical “Stocks Fall As I Took A Dump This Morning”. My honest point is that people who move money around based on how they think things are going economically aren’t as concerned with Obama’s style points as you guys seem to be.
Or as you guys seem to be still, I should say.
———————————————-
OMG HotAir and Thomas Sowell didn’t like it? Oh noes!!!!– Oliver Willis
It’s not necessarily a given Ed Morrissey or Thomas Sowell are not going to like it, although the odds are fairly high given Obama’s and Pelosi’s socialistic tendencies. But both of those writers make some very good points about the substance of Obama’s speech (at least Morrissey does) that I should’ve known would get no more than a one sentence dismissive from you that if for nothing else reminds me what a waste of time it is to even post links here.
Just for clarity, you linked us to a story that ties today’s market performance to the bank bailout plan. That’s a different thing altogether from the stimulus bill.– Quaker in a Basement
Not sure which one and very busy here, Quibbie. Probably not a shock to you that I get sloppy with my links and am not the best multi-tasker, but my guess for it is that the bank bail-out language today offered up by Geithner is sending financials down big-time because of lack of specificity offered up by him. As I’m sure you’re aware, markets do not like uncertainty, and he made it worse.
Again, my only point for that and the links and the market today is that we are on a fucking precipice right now, and I really don’t get the discussion about Obama’s style.
It’s fucking bizarre, given the times.
You mean the same Wall Street geniuses who drove the country into a ditch?
SaveFarris: Oliver, is the President (and by proxy, the Treasury Secretary) responsible for the economy: yes or no? If no, why was your answer different over the previous 8 years?
I’d say they can have a significant effect on the economy but two things should be made clear.
First, the state and fate of the economy are affected by a large number of things and nobody, not even the President and Treasury Secretary together can just sign a bill, pass a law or wave a magic wand and get it to do whatever they want. This should be obvious given Obama hasn’t just been able to sail his plan through Congress unchanged. So nobody can really be said to have sole “responsibility” for the economy.
Second, even if all power and therefore responsibility for the economy rested in the President’s hands, there is a significant difference between someone whose had that power for 8 years and someone who’s had it for 3 weeks.
it. This should also be obvious, Farris.
Shorter right winger: “Why hasn’t this n***** been impeached already?”
George W. Bush oversaw a 40% drop in the value of the Dow Jones during his presidency.
Eight years from now when Obama’s terms are up, if we’re down another 40%, feel free to criticize him as being just as bad as George W. Bush. Somehow, given his abilities and his cabinet picks to lead America out of this Republican-created crisis, I’m betting the Dow will be up significant come 2016.
Probably not 36,000, but that was another Republican fantasy anyways.
Gosh, I really miss those once-every-two-years mashups of gibberish, inanities, and sneering that old whatzisname used to give. Why must we have a mentally competent President who insists on informing the public????
As the President himself acknowledged, it wasn’t Wall Street that “drove the country into the ditch”, but people ‘making loans to those who had no means by which to repay them’ i.e. Fannie and Freddie. (I know you disagree. But the President couldn’t have been more clear last night.)
Which means the ones that ACTUALLY drove us into the ditch were Richard Syron, Franklin Raines, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank: Democrats all.
You mean the same Wall Street geniuses who drove the country into a ditch?– Oliver Willis
Not to be flip, and not to be as flip as that last comment, but yes, the same Timothy Geithner who oversaw much of what led to that bus going in the ditch is now looking like he’s making a reprise.
Oh, but so refreshing how well he’s speaking. Such a nice change from our past Treasury Secretaries, don’t you think?
there is a significant difference between someone whose had that power for 8 years and someone who’s had it for 3 weeks.
Actually the only difference is whether you have a (D) or an ( R ) after your name. If you’ve got the (D), why, it’s the other guys fault. If you’re an ( R )…
OK, SaveFarris, if you’re going to lie at least get your facts straight. Obama stated that a number of things “drove the country in to a ditch” with the biggest culprit being Wall Street and the bankers. We are suffering from 8 years og GOP economic policy and Democratic Party impotence. Are those facts too big for your pea brain to wrap around?
Now, being that you and several other here are far-right wingturds that patrol the “liberal” blogs, don’t you think that you should at least try to be more coherent when you make a point instead of spewing G.assy O.ld P.unk talking points by rote?
I mean, if the best weapons you Obama blog-assassins is Limhannity regurgitation, you’ll lose every time (wait, I take that back, just keep doing what you losers keep doing).
Now go home, put on a funny hat and do whatever morons do.
George W. Bush oversaw a 40% drop in the value of the Dow Jones during his presidency.– Jaim
Yes, even the dimmest bulbs among you will admit that that index was probably way over-inflated even in the best of times based on what propped it up there and what was looming unbeknown to even the brightest of bulbs. Same thing in the Clinton years with the tech bubble. Same thing going back all the way to the Reagan years, if you listen to people like Paul Krugman. So your little one-sentence snarky comments that were precipitated by no intelligent brainwave activity on your part say absolutely nothing. Big surprise there.
SaveFarris says: “As the President himself acknowledged, it wasn’t Wall Street that ‘drove the country into the ditch’, but people ‘making loans to those who had no means by which to repay them’ i.e. Fannie and Freddie. (I know you disagree. But the President couldn’t have been more clear last night.)”
You are fucking stupid.
Banks made bad loans because they knew they could sell those loans to people, the people on Wall Street. Meanwhile, they made money on the fees.
Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with that.
“there is a significant difference between someone whose had that power for 8 years and someone who’s had it for 3 weeks.”
SaveFarris says: “Actually the only difference is whether you have a (D) or an ( R ) after your name.”
It’s the height of hypocrisy for you to accuse someone of partisanship.
As I’m sure you’re aware, markets do not like uncertainty, and he made it worse.
Are these the same markets that speculate on what the price of oil is gonna be next year?
Methinks you wrong.
Fannie and Freddie didn’t have anything to do with the bad loans? Hmmm, I guess that’s why they’re business is booming these days. You have to be quite the ostrich impressionist to ignore facts that obvious.
When have I ever claimed to be non-partisan? When ever have I said that bipartisanship is in and of itself is a virtue?
Good luck finding that evidence, because you won’t. Of course knowing you, you won’t even try and just call me a vulgar name. You are truly a credit to the Socratic Method.
Dennis, several points in your comments on the economy are very wrong, however, since this is not an “economic” blog, I won’t address them here because this is not the subject of the post.
Maybe the clarity of thought or debate you seek on our current economic crisis can be found on one of the many financial blogs and not here.
Go and give those blogs a try or do you have a fear of being called out on your misstatements?
Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with that.–C.S. Strowbridge
And with that statement it is the height of hypocrisy for you to accuse someone of being fucking stupid.
People on Wall Street bought those loans and packaged them into CMO’s because they knew they had the explicit backing of FNMA and FHLMC- one couldn’t have worked without the other. And I’m pretty sure Obama mentioned that last night, not that he needed to to prove any point you made.
Strowbridge, you have no idea what you are talking about. And that’s ok, because there are a lot of people like you who don’t either that like to pretend they are economists, but you have a lot of nerve to call someone else a fucking idiot when you make a statement as blatantly idiotic as that one.
FNMA and FHLMC had nothing to do with the loans Wall Street houses bought. Good God, my sides are about to bust.
Go and give those blogs a try or do you have a fear of being called out on your misstatements?– Zardozinhell
None at all, Zardoz. I haven’t seen you post here much before, if at all, and now you show up and want to act like a sitemonitor, or actually more like you own the blog. Feel free to state a correction if you feel you must, but if I made one as grossly idiotic as the one CS Strowbridge just made that you choose to let slide, please let me know. Or are you also of the opinion that FNMA and FHLMC had nothing at all whatsoever to do with the situation we are in, as he alleges?
The President Attacks a Republican Straw Man
Oliver-
since you didn’t care much for Ed Morrissey’s analysis of Obama’s speech last night, maybe you’d like to read Jay Cost’s analysis of how he agrees with him that Obama’s straw man arguments are not helping at all with Republicans, or himself, or anyone for that matter.
This won’t go down in history as one of Obama’s better speeches.
Can you find anyone who isn’t a wingnut to support your incorrect points? Next you’ll tell me the WSJ was very upset by the press conference. And Fox News too!
Can you find anyone who isn’t a wingnut to support your incorrect points? –OW
Tough one, Oliver, since you consider anyone to the right of the collective opinions of your friends at Media Matters to be de facto wingnuts.
Paul Krugman wasn’t terribly enamored with Obama’s speech last night, but he’s an economist and on occasion is prone to giving an ‘on the other hand’ type of qualifier and I guess that rules him out in your book, too. So not sure what I can do.
How about Phil Bronstein blogging today at HuffPo?
Obama and the Press Play Wiffle Ball While Americans Strike Out
…..”Sorry, Mr. President, but you did say “unable to reverse” at your first town hall in Indiana only hours before. If Tim Russert were still alive and had Barack Obama on Meet The Press, he’d use the clip to confront him.
What’s the big deal? Hey, I hope the audacity of hope and about a trillion dollars gets the job done, too. I don’t like to talk or think about icky scenarios, either. But one of the things we were promised by this president was straight talk, express and local. He’s not living up to that promise or doing public service by fudging in the name of optimism.
The “lost decade in Japan” doesn’t really mean anything very specific unless you’re Japanese. To give credit, he did step to the brink of full disclosure by using the “c” word. But, Mr. President, do us all a favor and spell out what that catastrophe would look like. Use a little fear-mongering because it works, we’re staring at it anyway and why not? It isn’t the speech-making equivalent of waterboarding – more like showing citizens and elected officials the ugly equipment so they have a better sense of what might happen.
Let’s start parsing the high rhetoric of hope with the plain language of reality.
———–
Tough one, Oliver, since you consider anyone to the right of the collective opinions of your friends at Media Matters to be de facto wingnuts.
It’s funny how you guys are the ones who accuse us of playing the victim.
Um, you cited Hot Air, Thomas Sowell, and Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics. Wingers all. I was simply asking you to find a cogent dissent from someone who isn’t in the tank for the GOP 24/7. Bronstein seems to be that someone (albeit, what appears to be an outlier opinion). See, it wasn’t that hard was it?
You guys still the get that the days of saying “Rush/Hannity/Fox are all saying it in unison so it must be TRUEEEEEEEE!” are over. Every time you’ve done this I’ve had to push you to do some legwork on it.
You nailed it, Oliver. In my book, anyone that cites Hot Air, Sowell etc. automatically loses credibility in their argument.
Period.
So out of curiosity, if you can dismiss any cite to Sowell because he’s right wing, I can dismiss any cite to Krugman because he’s left wing, right?
Because hey, it doesn’t matter if what they are saying makes sense, it just matters which side they are on, right?
if you can dismiss any cite to Sowell because he’s right wing, I can dismiss any cite to Krugman because he’s left wing, right?
You don’t already?
Shirker.
You nailed it, Oliver. In my book, anyone that cites Hot Air, Sowell etc. automatically loses credibility in their argument.– Zardozinhell
Zardoz, you haven’t made one point that you’ve backed up on this thread yet. I’m not even sure you’ve made a point other than the usual lib blog commenter foam at the mouth rants on what you think are trolls come to rain on your little lovefest. If you’re such the big shot and know more than Ed Morrissey and Thomas Sowell, tell me where they are wrong. Start with Ed M. and tell me where you claim he is incorrect. I’ll wait.
Bronstein’s post was sorta wierd. At one point, he cited Rachel Maddow as an example of the press going easy on Obama because she asked Ben Nelson some hard questions.
Being appropriately skeptical of the President doesn’t require going easy on his critics.
I dig your style, Prez.
So out of curiosity, if you can dismiss any cite to Sowell because he’s right wing, I can dismiss any cite to Krugman because he’s left wing, right?– Haplo9
I’ll admit I did dismiss that guy largely out of his obsessive BDS these last four years, despite every one of my lib friends emailing his columns frequently the last two years telling me to heed his warnings. Big mistake on my part.
——————————————–
You guys still the get that the days of saying “Rush/Hannity/Fox are all saying it in unison so it must be TRUEEEEEEEE!” are over. Every time you’ve done this I’ve had to push you to do some legwork on it. OW
Oliver, that’s just complete hooey and I’d really have a hard time believing you believe that and aren’t just writing it for your loyal subjects here. Fair game to expect legwork for anyone here posting not in agreement with the groupthink here, but it’s rare that someone even acknowledges one point in the legwork we’ve done; because it’s rare that someone even acknowledges one point made in the link provided. And if it’s conclusive to a prior point made, that poster tends not to show up on the thread again or if he does, picks at something else unrelated. You’ve trained your admirers here to demand, but not to do any kind of critical analyis. And, again like you, as soon as they see it’s written by an author that they don’t care for, the ad hominems come out and that’s it…PASS. For instance, where was Ed Morrissey and Jay Cost incorrect in their accusations of Obama’s straw man arguments last night?
Bronstein seems to be that someone (albeit, what appears to be an outlier opinion). See, it wasn’t that hard was it?– OW
I’ll take that as the first and only compliment anyone’s given me here, so thanks. You’re a good sport.
“So out of curiosity, if you can dismiss any cite to Sowell because he’s right wing, I can dismiss any cite to Krugman because he’s left wing, right?”
Does Sowell have the track record Krugman has?
Does Sowell have the track record Krugman has?– C.S. Sturbridge
Asks the idget who declared that FNMA and FHLMC had nothing to do with banks making bad loans.
Of course, you could also write, “Stocks Fall As I Took A Dump This Morning”. You guys gonna keep this up for the entire next 8 years?– Oliver Willis
“‘300 point loss, must be because of Obama.’Couldn’t be because of continued job losses.” –C.S.Sturbridge
Dennis, several points in your comments on the economy are very wrong, however, since this is not an “economic” blog, I won’t address them here because this is not the subject of the post.”–Zardozinhell
———————————————————-
Anyone above ridiculing me care to post any link at all that doesn’t point to the market’s reaction to the spendulus bill and Obama’s ‘mulligan’, Tsy Sec. Geithner’s incompetence regarding the bank bail-out as the main cause of the almost 400 pt. drop in the DOW yesterday?
I for one will come to Dennis’s defense. I’ve called him a “dumbass” in the past, but I was wrong. His arguments are usually much more well-thought-out than, for instance, Jay Tea’s, he sticks to the point, and the links he posts generally actually back him up (also unlike Jay Tea).
I usually (OK, always) think he’s wrong, but he makes even the best liberal commenters here (fafaroo, Sean, ed, and several others,IMO) work a little harder to disprove his points.
The last thing that’s needed here is another jmccann or Amused Observer. Trolls, the good ones, are part of what makes this place interesting.
SaveFarris says: “CSS can’t even find a quote that comes close to ‘paraphrasing’ his claim. Color me surprised…”
How many times have one of you idiots said, ‘Bush has kept us safe from terrorists since 9/11.’?
Me: “Does Sowell have the track record Krugman has?– C.S. Sturbridge”
Dennis: “Asks the idget who declared that FNMA and FHLMC had nothing to do with banks making bad loans.”
I’ll take that as a ‘No. Sowell doesn’t have the same track record as Krugman has.’
And by the way, flipping houses is what caused the financial crisis. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac had zero to do with flipping houses.
And by the way, flipping houses is what caused the financial crisis. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac had zero to do with flipping houses.
– C.S. Sturbridge
———————————————————–
Completely and unequivocally wrong again. Maxine Waters knows more about banking and finance than you do, and that is not a compliment. At least she knows some of the words. If it’s not your cup of tea, that’s ok- I’d be glad to help you out if you weren’t so arrogant about it, but you seem to insist on being that way as some sort of matter of pride or something.
If FNMA and FHLMC weren’t there willing and able to guarantee the loans so they could be packaged and sold as all sorts of financial instruments then the flippers couldn’t get the easy financing they got. Banks and mortgage lenders wouldn’t be there ready, willing and able to lend to the flippers if they didn’t have Fannie and Freddie as an outlet or as a guarantor to the loans they just made so they could sell them to the street as AAA rated govt.-guaranteed securities.
It’s as basic as basic mortgage finance can get, CSS, and you’re not going to find out the rudimentary elements about it in a comic book or watching Melrose Place, even if you were willing to learn.
And Sturbridge, as I’ve said before, I don’t have the heart to do it to you, but if I wanted to be the complete and unadulterated asshole you and Mister ed choose to be to me, I would copy and paste your laughable statement “Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac had zero to do with flipping houses.” and repeat it back to you every time you made a post here for the next 3 weeks just to prove what a buffoon you were.
Got a friend who works in any capacity in mortgage lending? Ask them. Christ, ask someone here. Most of them I’m sure are far too embarrassed for you to even come to your aid.
“If FNMA and FHLMC…”
Are there for low income individuals looking to buy their first home.
Someone looking to flip homes as an investment would go somewhere else.
“I would copy and paste your laughable statement ‘Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac had zero to do with flipping houses.’ and repeat it back to you every time you made a post here for the next 3 weeks just to prove what a buffoon you were.”
And I will repeat your claim than 3 out of 9 is most.
I think I will have a lot more people coming to my defense than you will have coming to yours.
So, Dennis, want to take up that challenge?
No? Didn’t think so.
Just to make clear…
Banks didn’t say, “We can make bad loans, because Freddie / Mae will bail us out!”
They said, “We can make bad loans, because we make a profit from the fees, not getting paid back. Then we can bundle the bad loans together, and sell them so someone else on leverage. We’ll make money twice, with zero risk!”
Sturbridge, you’re digging your hole deeper. You have no idea what you are writing. You have no role what FNMA and FHLMC play in mortgage financing for banks and securities firms. None. People can argue from now until the end of time who was most at fault in this crisis, or where the blame lies, but no one with a scintilla of brain-wave activity can claim that FNMA and FHLMC had no role whatsoever in people easily flipping houses. They were both one very important cog in the wheel, and without them, it’s hard to say what would’ve happened, but it’s safe to say the magnitude of the problems would’ve been lessened dramatically.
If you are so bold, why don’t you for one time do something you demand of me incessantly, and that would be to supply just one link that would tend to support your ridiculous claim that FNMA and FHLMC had no role in the flipping of houses that took place in this country.
Just one, Sturbridge.
I think I will have a lot more people coming to my defense than you will have coming to yours. C.S.Sturbridge
I’ll take up that challenge. Please, CSS, find someone who will come to your defense in either your comic book affinity or your ridiculous claim that FNMA and FHLMC had no role in house flipping, and let’s have some fun.