Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The Cult of Indiscriminteness Caused The Crisis

To paraphrase Professor Allan Bloom, the Modern Liberal "has been raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is (the evil of) discrimination." Not wanting to be an evil discriminator, the Modern Liberal then opts to be utterly indiscriminate. This indiscriminateness of thought leads the Modern Liberal not to indiscriminateness of policy but rather to side always with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. After all, if nothing is better than anything else, then success is, de facto, unjust and failure, de facto, the victim of one thing or another. To right this injustice, then, the Modern Liberal seeks to deny the successful the "ill-gotten" fruits of their success and to reward and compensate the failed who could have failed through no fault of their own, for to recognize fault would require the employment of the critical judgment the Modern Liberal believes to be discrimination. As one would expect, by siding always with evil, failure and wrong the Modern Liberals' policies end up in disaster.

It is this philosophy of indiscriminateness that is the cause of the financial crisis we now face.

In 1999, President Bill Clinton looked over the mortgage lending industry and noticed that there was discrimination taking place. The pattern was clear, banks were far more likely to lend money to people who were more likely to be able to pay back those loans than to those who weren't. The banks were using discriminating thought -- risk assessment -- which the Democrats took to be discrimination and therefore sought to put an end to that evil.

Under Clinton's orders, banks would no longer consider the "outdated" criterion of discrimination -- such as whether the borrower had a job or was on welfare -- and, instead, lend money indiscriminately to those who can pay back the loan and those who can't equally.

As with all other programs of indiscriminateness, the proof that the evil of discrimination had been eradicated would be its adherence to a quota system. After all, if there is no recognizable difference between things, than all things should be represented in exactly its proportion to the population. Since there is no difference between those who can pay back loans and those who cant', the ideal quota -- as stated by Andrew Cuomo,Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development -- was fifty percent, with half the loans going to those who qualified and the other half to those who didn't.

The job of the banker, then, was no longer to employ discriminating thought in order to find as many QUALIFIED recipients for their loans as possible (after all, that's how banks make their money) but, instead, their job became to fulfill their government proscribed quota through "creative" banking.

Like the Christians and Jews in Barack Obama's dreams, the bankers would no longer "cling to" their bigoted, "outdated" policies of risk assessment and, instead, would simply seek ways to justify loaning money to those who, through the evil act of thinking, would not have been given the cash. As Ann Coulter noted, bankers would include unemployment benefits and welfare checks as sources of income to help justify the unjustifiable.

This house of cards stayed up for a few years because, with all of the unqualified now buying houses, housing prices rose (supply and demand and all that) and, so long as housing prices kept rising, the unqualified could simply refinance their mortgage based on the higher "value" of their house or, if need be, sell at a profit.

But -- and a lot of young Americans don't understand this -- not everything goes up forever. When housing prices reached a point where not even the folks Barack Obama calls "the rich" could afford a small house in Hollywood or San Francisco prices inched downward. This meant the folks who bought their house using unemployment checks and welfare stubs couldn't make the next months mortgage payment. With the goal having been half of all mortgages owned by Fannie Mae going to the unqualified, it's not hard to figure out why they went belly up.

By championing the unqualified, the Democrats may have had good intentions, but the reality is as it always is with the Modern Liberal, EVERYBODY has gotten hurt and, arguably, the poor worst of all. By eliminating the discriminating thought of risk assessment those who did not qualify are, today, no better off than they were before. In fact, it can be argued that they are WORSE off because the incentive to make themselves qualified by improving themselves and their efforts had been eliminated by their having received the rewards without qualifying for them.

Meanwhile, those who have done what is required to qualify for loans to buy a house or start a business find that there are no loans to be had. Obviously this is bad for them, but it is also bad for those receiving unemployment benefits and welfare checks as the jobs these loans would have helped create are now not being created.

And now we are ALL being burdened with a nearly one trillion dollar bail out for the banks who were doing just fine until the Clinton Administration recognized that they were engaging in the discriminating practices of not loaning money to people who do not have the means of paying them back.

27 comments:

karin said...

lol...you can almost feel him straining to put that one over.

...a survey of registered voters released on Monday, 47 percent blamed Republicans for the current financial crisis the stock market.

In contrast, only 24 percent blamed the Democrats, with 20 percent saying both parties were to blame and 8 percent not blaming either party.


Lotsa luck with that one, Evan...that's a two to one margin, and 24% is about the number of losers still on board the Bush suicide cruiser.

Anonymous said...

On the other hand, sickfuck wingding's "discriminateness" finds the real culprit.

What a pack of grotesque fools these reichos are:

Fundamentalists blame Wall Street's woes on gays

by On Top Magazine



Christian fundamentalists are suggesting gays and lesbians are to blame for Wall Street's woes, a frequently made charge in the wake of national calamities.

In a September 25th blog post titled 'The Nation Will Right Itself If It Fixes Sex', Christian Civil League of Maine Executive Director Michael Heath writes that the financial crisis facing Wall Street is a symptom of America's sinful sexual culture, including the acceptance of gay unions.

“Our crisis is a symptom, not the cause,” writes Michael Heath.

Kirk said...

The only thing bipartisan these days, is the blame game. Both of "the two parties" are pathetic.
I'm with Ron Paul et al on this one.

John said...

(1) *The causus causata* of the snowballed meltdown has been identified (i.e. the subprime lending corruption at Fannie & Freddie).

(2) A look at the timeline makes clear that the practice of sub-prime lending began in the Clinton era and was called to the carpet in 2004 when it started getting out of hand and raised red flags to number crunchers. The Republican-backed snooping was beaten back by Democrats like Barney Frank, Reid, and others.

(3) The "community organizing" that Barack has on the top of his resume' for "experience" refers to his activities with ACORN--which worked hand-in-hand with Franklin Raines at Fannie.

(4) Raines is now "economic advisor" to Obama.

All you lefty fucks can go to hell.

suze said...

in 1999, the republicans controlled congress. not only that, fannie mae had been pressured by banks, thrift institutions, stock holders and mortgage companies to help them make more loans. but, keep trying with that "clinton diddit, too" meme.

suze said...

oh yeah, and blame the brown people, too, while you're at it, evan.

John said...

Actually, I think even Clinton tried to do something about it.

And how is using the Clinton presidency as a chronological starting point a "Clinton meme"?

One more time:

(1) *The causus causata* of the snowballed meltdown has been identified (i.e. the subprime lending corruption at Fannie & Freddie).

(2) A look at the timeline makes clear that the practice of sub-prime lending began in the Clinton era and was called to the carpet in 2004 when it started getting out of hand and raised red flags to number crunchers. The Republican-backed snooping was beaten back by Democrats like Barney Frank, Reid, and others.

(3) The "community organizing" that Barack has on the top of his resume' for "experience" refers to his activities with ACORN--which worked hand-in-hand with Franklin Raines at Fannie.

(4) Raines is now "economic advisor" to Obama.

suze said...

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer is governor of New York.

John said...

"oh yeah, and blame the brown people, too, while you're at it, evan."

The race card. And that's why the '04 hearings about Fannie & Freddie's CORRUPTION failed.

John said...

Spitzer.

Are you that stupid, suze, shameless, or both?

Again:

(1) *The causus causata* of the snowballed meltdown has been identified (i.e. the subprime lending corruption at Fannie & Freddie).

(2) A look at the timeline makes clear that the practice of sub-prime lending began in the Clinton era and was called to the carpet in 2004 when it started getting out of hand and raised red flags to number crunchers. The Republican-backed snooping was beaten back by Democrats like Barney Frank, Reid, and others.

(3) The "community organizing" that Barack has on the top of his resume' for "experience" refers to his activities with ACORN--which worked hand-in-hand with Franklin Raines at Fannie.

(4) Raines is now "economic advisor" to Obama.

suze said...

'04? who controlled congress then?

John said...

What does that mean? Who had two years to fix it since '06?

Do your homework, suze:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021644.php

suze said...

and, get an education, john. fannie and freddie are not even the biggest part of the problem. ever hear of derivatives, bimbo?

John said...

Excuse me. Try this:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021644.php

suze said...

dumbass john sez: who had two years to fix it?

um, who had six years to fix it?

karin said...

lol...who PERPETRATED over NINETY vetoes in that time frame and blocked everything the Democrats tried to do?!!

Over Ninety!!!!

But who cares??...the people know it's conservative deregulation and greedy capitalism which is to blame and these poor weirdos simply don't count for anything any more.

It's not strictly Dem v. Repub. The Dems have been severely infected by the phony free market excesses themselves. It's a left v. right issue, and many Dems are way to far to the right, themselves.

McCain's made a spectacle of himself and appears to be a psychopath.

Let them blither about it and REPEAT it over and over.

"...one more time" how pathetic.

Every ten year old knows if you say it last, that makes it true...and the public now knows these people are all ten year olds.

brettmcs said...

There has been a dam burst of virtual ink spilled on this financial crunch. It's good to see at least one clear explanation of the moral origins of it.

Karin et al quote opinion surveys as if they don't just reflect the MSM spin. That's why they keep thinking their side will win and are so shocked when they don't. The media influence the opinion polls, not the real poll. In troubled times people with go with the experienced candidate.

John said...

One more time, girls:

(1) *The causus causata* of the snowballed meltdown has been identified (i.e. the subprime lending corruption at Fannie & Freddie).

(2) A look at the timeline makes clear that the practice of sub-prime lending began in the Clinton era and was called to the carpet in 2004 when it started getting out of hand and raised red flags to number crunchers. The Republican-backed snooping was beaten back by Democrats like Barney Frank, Reid, and others.

(3) The "community organizing" that Barack has on the top of his resume' for "experience" refers to his activities with ACORN--which worked hand-in-hand with Franklin Raines at Fannie.

(4) Raines is now "economic advisor" to Obama.

Do the math.

John said...

Listen to the hearings. It's CLEAR:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021644.php

jmb said...

Subprime mortgages is just another name for affirmative action.

look...I'm fo' said...

Now, lissin an lissin tite...

3+3=4

dasrite

it equal fo'

Now, lemme repeat

uh...why is evybody leaving?

ain my ack cute?

jmb said...

Subprime mortgages is just another name for affirmative action for greedy fat cats in the realty and banking bidniss.

yawn said...

Again, 3 + 3 = 4.

Now you know, no?

FJ said...

Liberals + your $ = More National Debt

Anonymous said...

haha...they just don't care if they embarrass themselves do they?

Reagan/Bush/Even Dumber Bush the deficit skyrockets.

Clinton brings it back down to earth...now the Dems will have to clean up after the little piggies all over again.

Anonymous said...

causus causatum...lol...duh, is that like, uh, cause, dewd?

The stupider these fucks get the more they feel the need to dress it up in pretentious terminology.

Anonymous said...

Here is another video showing how the "Cult of Indiscriminateness" at work. This shows the seeds of the finanical crisis at work.

WATCH:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64

AGAIN this shows that Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue. AND ACORN was at the heart of this and who was a key player Barack Obama.