UT alum

Not automatically. Hey, let's lighten up a minute. Did ya'll see where Prince Philip rolled his Toyota Landrover? Ninety-seven, and the guy walked away. The vehicle looked like it took a pretty good beating.

I would believe my son, and tell him to tough it out. I would also believe my daughter and tell her to speak her piece.

What if it was your daughter? Would you lol then?

I don't think that the Senate hearings were allowed enough evidence or testimony to decide if the man's character was suitable for the Supreme Court. It was ugly, no doubt, but you think the accuser should have just been ignored?

So, your idea of negotiation is give your side everything they want or walk away? A bill passed both houses with 1.7 billion in border security funding. Both houses. McConnell didn't know Trump was going to throw him under the bus with a veto. Trump screwed the pooch not realizing the Senate Majority leader is responsible for bringing any bill to vote in the Senate. He's painted himself into a corner, and I can't wait to see how he gets out of it.

Explain how Democrats are doing exact same thing?

But never denied anybody a hearing. You don't hear what I'm saying. I don't recall a Democrat Senate Majority Leader ever announcing on inauguration day that his/her only objective was to make the President a one termer. That is obstructionism prima facie.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Democrats have ever refused to even hear a Republican president's nominee. That was a great disrespect to the presidency, not just President Obama, when they refused to even listen to Garrick Marland whether the vote happened or not.

Merrick Garland

I can't see how a Republican doesn't choke on the word "obstructionist".

Actually, sir, Texas has work requirements for welfare recipients and I support them. They do work, and, heaven forbid, I propose that option be removed from the states. And to think conservatives rant and rave constantly about “liberal bias”. Give me a break.

first off, I make no claims to be a scholar, just an average Joe who tries his best to make sense of the world around me. As for the defaults, predatory lending practices are one way people are enticed (it does take a bit of a sense of greed on the borrower, as well). When the money people push the value over the edge of what's reasonable and the market crashes, what are people to do? Unemployment at 13%, house worth half what you paid, what you think's gonna happen. That does not absolve the mortgagee of their responsibilities. I reckon many a good credit score was ruined. The main point I wanted to make was, don't blame it all on government policy or poor people trying to game the system to live beyond their means. Middle and upper income groups amassed most of that foreclosure debt, greed being a motivator there as there were people buying and flipping like crazy riding that wave. A for my opinion of economists, I look to them for sources of information, opinions, and ideas. I might just look up Mr. Wallison's book and give it a go.

It doesn't address down payment and lessening of regs, but it does make a convincing argument that the upper and middle class earners drove the default crisis, not the lower income people whom the Community Reinvestment Act was meant to help.

Wow. Didn't know I was going to be held up to scholarly evaluation. Paul Krugman is a Nobel winning economist, and I'll bet you wouldn't agree to much of anything he had to say about economics. So, expert schmexpert. I couldn't find reference to the 300 lender statement other than by quote. If you want to read the research piece by the MIT school of management, however, it's right here: [Hidden Content].

Securitization of mortgages through derivative devices fueled a bubble that wound up driving housing prices to unsustainable levels. Add the Great Recession and voila. What I don't like is way that the role Community Reinvestment Act was distorted. That only gives conservative pundits I've heard their "cred" to blame the poor - their favorite targets. As for "Hidden in Plain Sight", I would prefer something a little more objective than what a shill for the American Enterprise Institute writes.

Sloan School of Management at MIT. The reduced down payments and other incentives by the fed applied only to properties in the community reinvestment zones - a small percentage of total foreclosures. The derivatives market provided the prime vehicle to fuel the greed.

Of thee top 300 mortgage lenders who crashed, none participated in the CRA program. The vast majority of foreclosures occurred in geographic areas not eligible for CRA participation. I think that the derivatives market and the rise of credit default swaps which arose in an unregulated financial environment brought in a lot more capital ( money) to throw aroundthan the fed government did. That’s another point of view.

So the feds put a gun to the mortgage lenders’ heads and made them follow unsound business practices?

That’s real easy to say when you’re talking about someone else’s job.

That’s one point of view.

That’s the best example of how irresponsible the banking system became during the frenzy.

I guess you you’re proud to have as president a man who is barred in the state of New York from having anything to do with non-profit organizations. That rates pretty high on my sleaze-o-meter. Also, isis defeated? Give me a break. Trump/Russia collision still up in the air. Korea? I think they’ve started building missiles again. Kim Jong Un played him like a cheap ukulele. Trade war is nothing but a series of import taxes on the American people. What’s your point on Kavanaugh and Gorsuch? They’re on the court, so what? He’s done hardly anything he promised, he just keeps saying he has over and over and over...

I don’t know. Ask a postal worker.

Zero doc loans were the government’s fault?

It started after the savings & loan crash in early eighties. Dodd Frank just latest iteration. Both parties do the banks’ bidding.