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.

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.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

How many times have one of you idiots said, ‘Bush has kept us safe from terrorists since 9/11.’?

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.

“‘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?

Asks the idget who declared that FNMA and FHLMC had nothing to do with banks making bad loans.

Does Sowell have the track record Krugman has?

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.

Being appropriately skeptical of the President doesn’t require going easy on his critics.

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.

You don’t already?

Shirker.

Because hey, it doesn’t matter if what they are saying makes sense, it just matters which side they are on, right?

Period.

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.

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.

Let’s start parsing the high rhetoric of hope with the plain language of reality.
———–