Argentina: Could It Happen Here?

By
November 21, 2009

Well, it is just economics. It could happen anywhere given certain policies.

Policy like the one they're debating today in the Senate. If you listen to the Republican portion of the debate and realize the spending boom government is headed for, it won't be long before we are truly bankrupt as a nation without great wealth transfer from the middle class to government in the form of taxes and fees.

It will be unavoidable, if it isn't already.



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. Bob says:

    Yes, it will be a struggle to keep the ignorant demagogues of the Republican Party from continuing the mismanagement of this country that they perfected during the Bush administration. Conservatives fear the government because it’s the only thing that stands in the way of this country being run solely by and for the super wealthy and their minions, the corporate lobbyists. Republicans don’t want regular people having any power. They want to ensure a world where credit card companies get to set the rates and terms and the little people have no choice but to pay. They want a world where rich people have no social obligation to the rest of society, but get to tailor government policies to suit their exclusive needs. If Republicans had their way, this country WOULD become the kind of banana republic that has been so common among South American countries.
    If Republican economic theories had any merit, the Bush administration should have been an era of prosperity. Instead, it turned out to be a disaster. It was an era of economic stagnation ending with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Now the wing nuts want to pretend that this recent failed experiment never happened. But they had their chance to show what they can do, and we’re now struggling to clean up the mess they left behind. And now they think they earned the right to lecture us on economic theory? What hilarious presumption!

  2. Demoscum might _try_ to make it happen here, Dan – but then, that’s what the Second Amendment is for.
    And pansi-asses like Roberta would do well to remember that.

  3. Skywise says:

    Bob seems to forget that it was DEMOCRAT economic theories that caused the economic collapse. FHA and Acorn forced banks to take on bad loans so “everyone” could buy a house and backed it with the US Government. So when the housing market collapsed, it took the overextended banks with it who called on the US to back up the losses which it could only due by massive injections of capital. On top of that Obama and the Dems DOUBLED that injection for their own political purposes (how’s that job’s stimulus of 600,000 saved or created jobs going?) and the US has no fiscal basis for its capital.
    Add to that a health care bill that will add a 3 trillion dollar load to the US outflows FOREVER and you’re looking at a country that can’t sustain itself financially.
    That’s YOUR Democrats at work. What economic theory is this based on? What hilarious presumption is this? Oh yeah… it’s THE REPUBLICANS fault? Well if your solution makes the problem far worse, it’s the Democrats fault.
    No presumption there. Just plain fact.

  4. Bob says:

    “Demoscum might _try_ to make it happen here, Dan – but then, that’s what the Second Amendment is for.”
    Sorry, Darth Hilarious, but the constitutional theories of costume-wearing, battery-powered-light-sabre wielders don’t carry a lot of weight in the overall scheme of things. But if you say “Trick or Treat” maybe somebody will drop a Tootsie Roll in your little pumpkin bucket.

  5. CC says:

    Let’s not forget the contributions the Republicans gave in this regard. If not for a corrupt GOP during the Bush years, we could have avoided all this.
    I’m sure that doesn’t register with the GOP marketers though.

  6. Bob says:

    “Bob seems to forget that it was DEMOCRAT economic theories that caused the economic collapse. FHA and Acorn forced banks to take on bad loans so “everyone” could buy a house and backed it with the US Government.”
    If that’s the case, skywise, then why were a majority of sub-prime loans made by financial institutions that weren’t covered by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that you blame for “forcing” loans to minority customers?
    http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_community_reinvestment_act_r.php
    “In reality, the precise opposite of what a CRA-induced collapse should have looked like is what occurred. The 345 mortgage brokers that imploded were non-banks, not covered by the CRA legislation. The vast majority of CRA covered banks are actually healthy.
    The biggest foreclosure areas aren’t Harlem or Chicago’s South side or DC slums or inner city Philly; Rather, it has been non-CRA regions — the Sand States — such as southern California, Las Vegas, Arizona, and South Florida. The closest thing to an inner city foreclosure story is Detroit – and maybe the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler actually had something to do with that.”
    Since you’re such a knowledgeable economic theorist and all, skywise, maybe you can explain to us all how that could be the case. The fact that you drag ACORN into the discussion is really the propeller on your little wing nut beanie. Too funny.

  7. Jeff Stone says:

    Democrat or Republican labels are, in and of themselves, meaningless currently.
    All that has ever mattered is whether the elected Rep./Sen. has lived up to their oath to “support this Constitution”.
    To paraphrase, if it were to become a crime to be a Constitutionalist, would there be enough evidence to convict your Rep./Sen. ?
    If we get back to Constitutionalist principles, while there will be pain, as there is pain in the withdrawal of any abused drug, it will be less painful than that which we will soon be going through.
    So, quit bickering about useless labels of Republican or Democrat, and start supporting the Constitution and Constitutionalists.

  8. Bob says:

    “Democrat or Republican labels are, in and of themselves, meaningless currently.”
    The Constitution is just a framework. The Constitution tells us little or nothing about specific issues like a system of universal healthcare, for example. It’s up to elected officials to decide those things, and as it happens to be, one party (the Democrats) are in favor of universal healthcare while the other (Republicans) are unanimously opposed to it. It’s nice to say that these labels don’t matter, but in fact, they do. They’re hugely important.

  9. Skywise says:

    Gosh Roberta… did it take you a whole 2 hours of surfing the bet before you found that?
    How about this?
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
    Now I’m waiting for your economic credentials… perhaps you can find another looney leftist rag that supports Acorn to back y\up your assertions? Too funny.

  10. Bob says:

    But Skywise, since you’re so smart, maybe you could explain it to us in your own words. How does it make any sense that the CRA is responsible for these failed mortgage lenders if the majority of them were not covered by CRA? How does it make sense that institutions covered by CRA are on average in better shape than those lenders that weren’t?
    I think a telling passage in Carney’s post (the one you linked to) shows an intent to willfully mislead. Notice the crafty language:
    “What’s more, an enormous amount of subprime loans were made to lower-income borrowers targeted by the CRA. Forty-five percent of subprime loan originations went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006, where the foreclosures are almost twice as likely. This suggests that the kind of low income borrowers targeted by the CRA are likely to be responsible for the majority of subprime foreclosures.”
    So Carney says that loans were made to “lower-income borrowers TARGETED by the CRA.” What he so carefully avoids saying is that most of the actual loans were made by institutions NOT COVERED BY CRA. In other words, while some portion of loans were made to the same people under the CRA provisions, the vast majority were not. So most of the institutions who imploded did so because — under no influence or duress from the government — they voluntarily entered into loan agreements without adequately ensuring that the borrowers could pay them back. In other words, it was their own fault, not the government’s. So the whining refrain that “The Democrats made them do it” doesn’t hold any water. I note Carney’s intentionally deceptive wording and consider it evidence enough that he knows he’s trying to make a bad-faith argument.
    Did you even read the post I linked to earlier? There are numerous sources that argue against Carney’s conclusions. Carney is an outlier who is outnumbered by a preponderance of responsible and knowledgeable economists. Of course, since he’s saying what you want to believe, that alone will be reason enough for you to cherry-pick his claims. For wing nuts, ideology always comes before facts.

  11. Bob says:

    Gosh Skystupid… 5 hours of dithering and surfing “the bet” (as you apparently call it) and you still can’t come up with anything? Maybe you can post Carney’s post another couple of times and pretend it’s new information. “Too funny.”

  12. southdakotaboy says:

    Well bob you guy’s own this now. Rightly or wrongly you have fixed all the blame for the collapse on the Right and Conservatives. I’m not going to argue with over that at this point, water under the bridge. However the Dems and the left now own this.
    Obama and his people have made huge promises about how things are going to be so much better if we all just do it thier way. Well they have a super majority in Congress and control of the White House. So we on the right are just going to sit back and let you go it alone. We are washing our hands of this. If it works you can have all the credit. If it fails you get all the blame.
    By the way when you guys fall flat on your faces don’t expect a helping hand from those of us on the right. If I had my way when the Dems are flat on their faces I’m hoping we walk right up to and start kicking you right in the face and put a knife firmly in the back of the progressive movement in this country. Then leave it’s stinking corpse to rot in the sun.

  13. Bob says:

    “I’m hoping we walk right up to and start kicking you right in the face and put a knife firmly in the back of the progressive movement in this country. Then leave it’s stinking corpse to rot in the sun.”
    Quit your whining. Your side just didn’t do a very good job and got thrown out of office as a result. Living in a democracy means letting someone else pursue their own agenda from time to time. Only tyrants demand to have it their way all the time. Maybe you could try to cultivate a little emotional maturity about it rather than going off into violent revenge fantasies because you can’t handle the consequences of actual democracy.

  14. “Sorry, Darth Hilarious, but the constitutional theories of costume-wearing, battery-powered-light-sabre wielders don’t carry a lot of weight in the overall scheme of things. But if you say “Trick or Treat” maybe somebody will drop a Tootsie Roll in your little pumpkin bucket.”
    Come out from behind your daddy’s skirt and say it to my face, coward.
    ” Maybe you could try to cultivate a little emotional maturity about it rather than going off into violent revenge fantasies because you can’t handle the consequences of actual democracy.”
    We live in a representative republic, Roberta, you moronic little noob, not a democracy.
    ‘S okay, though. We’ll remind you of that again when we finish kicking your limp-wristed little pansy-asses.

  15. Bob says:

    “‘S okay, though. We’ll remind you of that again when we finish kicking your limp-wristed little pansy-asses.”
    Dude, YOU’re the one dressed up like an ewok.

  16. “Dude, YOU’re the one dressed up like an ewok.”
    Coward, YOU’RE the one who won’t come out from behind your keyboard.
    ‘Course, we all know why that is: you wouldn’t last five seconds against any of us spewing your BS.
    So much for you and your “honest debate”. You’re nothing but a pussy, little girl, and we’ve long since figured it out. You’re even a failure at being a halfway decent troll. Give it up and go give Soros his money back.

  17. O! says:

    Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.
    2010.

  18. “So most of the institutions who imploded did so because — under no influence or duress from the government — they voluntarily entered into loan agreements without adequately ensuring that the borrowers could pay them back. In other words, it was their own fault, not the government’s.”
    Unfortunately for the paid whore who just repeats talking points, that is not the case; the government was openly encouraging these risky loans.
    “The progress of Fannie Mae’s CRA transactions volume was announced today by Jamie Gorelick, Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae, at the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Annual Secondary Mortgage Conference in Orlando, Florida.
    “Our approach to our lenders is `CRA Your Way’,” Gorelick said. “Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders’ portfolios; we’ll package them into securities; we’ll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination; and we’ll create customized CRA-targeted securities. This expanded approach has improved liquidity in the secondary market for CRA product, and has helped our lenders leverage even more CRA lending. Lenders now have the flexibility to use their own, customized loan products,” Gorelick said.
    From the inception of Fannie Mae’s CRA initiative in mid-1997 through the end of the first quarter of 2001, Fannie Mae’s CRA acquisition volume totals $10.06 billion. Within this total, highlights include: portfolio acquisitions of $4.75 billion, flow business of $1.83 billion, and Fannie Mae’s Investor Trading Desk transactions of $1.86 billion. These three categories comprise 83 percent of the $10.06 billion total.
    Through its American Dream Commitment, Fannie Mae has pledged to transact before the end of this decade more than $20 billion in specially-targeted CRA business and to finance over $500 billion in CRA business altogether. Over the decade, an estimated one third of loans financed by Fannie Mae will meet Fannie Mae’s CRA business goal.”
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_May_7/ai_74223918/
    But we know the paid whore Bob isn’t capable of honestly evaluating such things. Paid whores like himself are nothing more than parrots, incapable of independent thought and dependent upon the Obama Party to tell them what to think. Paid whore Bob isn’t getting his welfare check to be intellectual and honest; he’s being paid to tell us how Obama is perfect and that the Obama Party is always right.
    Too bad his whoring is so incompetent and transparent.

  19. Bob says:

    “‘Course, we all know why that is: you wouldn’t last five seconds against any of us spewing your BS.”
    Whatsamatter, Jar Jar, can’t handle respecting other peoples’ right of free speech? I thought you were a big advocate of constitutional rights and all.

  20. Bob says:

    “Paid whore Bob isn’t getting his welfare check to be intellectual and honest; he’s being paid to tell us how Obama is perfect and that the Obama Party is always right.”
    So, North Dallas, has the cloud of homophobia lifted enough — now that Riehl is through mocking Andrew Sullivan for being gay and moved on to nonstop kissing of Sarah Palin’s ass — for you to show yourself around here again? I wonder how you feel taking the side of people who mostly look down on people like you. Do you all just pretend that it’s not an issue, like a sort of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or something? The anti-gay rhetoric gets pretty vicious around here. How do you feel about that?
    Anyway, as for the financial crisis, the storyline says that somehow the mere existence of CRA “encouraged” these otherwise non-CRA-regulated institutions to make bad loans. But since they weren’t covered by CRA, nobody was forcing them to do anything. If they entered into bad loan agreements, they did so willingly. If they weren’t ensuring that the people they loaned to had the means to pay them back, then they weren’t doing their jobs. Since conservatives claim to be all about personal responsibility, you’d think they wouldn’t be so anxious to excuse such reckless behavior. Oh, right, but it gives them an excuse to pretend that the whole financial crisis is the fault of poor minorities — yeah, that’s it.

  21. But Bob, according to leftists like yourself, there is no right of “free speech” — that’s why you’re trying to ban and drive conservative radio off the air and egging Sarah Palin’s book signings.
    Since you want to bully and intimidate others, you can be treated similarly. Just like your terrorist friends, the fact that you refuse to follow the rules of civilized behavior means that you can be dealt with outside those same rules.

  22. O! says:

    Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.
    2010.

  23. “Whatsamatter, Jar Jar,”
    As I recall, Jar Jar was at least willing to come out in the open & fight. Lot more than we can say for you, eh, Roberta?
    ” can’t handle respecting other peoples’ right of free speech? I thought you were a big advocate of constitutional rights and all. ”
    What ND30 said. You seem to have a problem taking back what you like to pretend you can dish out.
    But then, that’s typical of a leftist coward.

  24. Bob says:

    “Since you want to bully and intimidate others, you can be treated similarly. Just like your terrorist friends, the fact that you refuse to follow the rules of civilized behavior means that you can be dealt with outside those same rules.”
    What, expressing an opinion is “bullying?” Tell me how I’m infringing on anybody’s rights. Who are my “terrorist friends?” How am I not following the “rules of civilized behavior?” I’m not hurting anybody; all I’m doing is expressing my opinion. If you crybabies can’t handle it, it’s your problem. But I love how you have to fabricate ridiculous scenarios where you pretend that somehow I’m doing something wrong by merely expressing my opinion, just so you can justify your own feelings of rage and hatred. They’re just opinions, boys. Grow up and deal with it.

  25. Yeah, Roberta, well – we’re just expressing our opinion about you.
    And our opinion of you is that you’re a cowardly little a$$hat douchebag.
    Grow up and deal with _that_ if you don’t like it, pansy.

  26. Bob says:

    “Grow up and deal with _that_ if you don’t like it, pansy.”
    I couldn’t care less. You’re clearly the one who’s having trouble controlling your anger because you can’t handle someone having opinions you don’t like. Your emotional immaturity isn’t my problem.

  27. “I couldn’t care less.”
    Which is why a cowardly skank like you can’t handle being called on it, right? Always gotta have some half-assed response. Face it, little girl – you’re my bitch, and that just sticks in your craw, doesn’t it? (guffaw)
    “You’re clearly the one who’s having trouble controlling your anger because you can’t handle someone having opinions you don’t like. Your emotional immaturity isn’t my problem.”
    No, your problem is that you wouldn’t have the balls to spew your BS to any of our faces, because you know where your skanky ass would wind up if you tried it.
    But hey, keep pretending that yours are brass, little girl. We here know better.

  28. “Anyway, as for the financial crisis, the storyline says that somehow the mere existence of CRA “encouraged” these otherwise non-CRA-regulated institutions to make bad loans.”
    Obviously, Bob, you didn’t read what you were provided.
    “The progress of Fannie Mae’s CRA transactions volume was announced today by Jamie Gorelick, Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae, at the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Annual Secondary Mortgage Conference in Orlando, Florida.
    “Our approach to our lenders is `CRA Your Way’,” Gorelick said. “Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders’ portfolios; we’ll package them into securities; we’ll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination; and we’ll create customized CRA-targeted securities. This expanded approach has improved liquidity in the secondary market for CRA product, and has helped our lenders leverage even more CRA lending. Lenders now have the flexibility to use their own, customized loan products,” Gorelick said.
    From the inception of Fannie Mae’s CRA initiative in mid-1997 through the end of the first quarter of 2001, Fannie Mae’s CRA acquisition volume totals $10.06 billion. Within this total, highlights include: portfolio acquisitions of $4.75 billion, flow business of $1.83 billion, and Fannie Mae’s Investor Trading Desk transactions of $1.86 billion. These three categories comprise 83 percent of the $10.06 billion total.
    Through its American Dream Commitment, Fannie Mae has pledged to transact before the end of this decade more than $20 billion in specially-targeted CRA business and to finance over $500 billion in CRA business altogether. Over the decade, an estimated one third of loans financed by Fannie Mae will meet Fannie Mae’s CRA business goal.”
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_May_7/ai_74223918/
    By the way, are you aware of the fact that CRA status goes with the loan — meaning that banks who ARE covered by CRA can buy loans from non-CRA covered entities for the sole purpose of complying with CRA?
    And who was ordering them to do so, natch?
    “Starting in the 1990s, activists such as ACORN (and, as reported elsewhere, Sonia Sotomayor), media outlets such as the New York Times, and politicians from George H. W. Bush to Bill Clinton pressured banks to make riskier loans, on the pretext of helping some minority applicants. (As Sowell points out, minorities were hurt worst in the resulting housing bust.)
    Janet Reno, Bill Clinton’s Attorney General, warned banks, “Do not wait for the Justice Department to come knocking.”
    In 1993, the Department of Housing and Urban Development brought legal action against banks that failed to meet racial quotas in lending. In 1995, new controls under CRA imposed more stringent quotas. Never mind whether the recipients of the risky loans were prepared to repay them.”
    http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090706/OPINION/907059995/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062

  29. “So, North Dallas, has the cloud of homophobia lifted enough — now that Riehl is through mocking Andrew Sullivan for being gay and moved on to nonstop kissing of Sarah Palin’s ass — for you to show yourself around here again? I wonder how you feel taking the side of people who mostly look down on people like you. Do you all just pretend that it’s not an issue, like a sort of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or something? The anti-gay rhetoric gets pretty vicious around here. How do you feel about that?”
    The problem here, Bob, is that you are a bigot.
    Granted, the only gays you know are liberal, which is why you think all gays support the pedophilia and promiscuity, including having unprotected disease-spreading sex with multiple partners, that are endemic among liberal gays and especially Andrew Sullivan. And your racist attitudes are due to the fact that the only black people you know are liberals as well who are incompetent welfare addicts who need special points to be given based solely on their skin color in order for them to even come close to qualifying for jobs or educational opportunities.
    Perhaps the most hilarious example of how you see me is the fact that you think that all gay people respond, act, and think the same way — the way in which you demand they do it. It’s sort of like your Barack Obama and Obama Party’s insistence that, if you vote against ObamaCare, that you are not black and their insistence that black or minority conservatives are “Uncle Toms” or “house slaves”. According to you and your Barack Obama, all minority members must think and act the same way, just as your racist Sonia Sotomayer says the skin color and gender of a judge determine whether or not judicial decisions are valid.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/19/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5712116.shtml

  30. Bob says:

    “But hey, keep pretending that yours are brass, little girl. We here know better.”
    You punk-ass blowhard. I’ll keep saying whatever the hell I want and there’s nothing you can do about it. “and that just sticks in your craw, doesn’t it, bitch? (guffaw)”

  31. “You punk-ass blowhard. I’ll keep saying whatever the hell I want and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
    So come say it to my face, chickens**t.
    You know the address. Come out from behind your daddy’s skirt and show some cojones.
    Oh, wait – you’d actually _need_ some to be able to show them. My bad. (chuckle)

  32. Bob says:

    My objective is to say whatever I want to say. Your objective is apparently to (a) get under my skin, and/or (b) keep me from saying whatever I want to say. Your name-calling, childish ranting and threats are apparently completely ineffectual and impotent, because I’m still saying whatever I want to say, and there seems to be nothing you can do about it. So according to our objectives, I win and you lose. Deal with it. And since it’s such a waste of time interacting with you, I’m gonna have to deny you the attention that you seem to crave so much. I know you’ll come back with more taunts and name-calling, which I’ll recognize as the sad plea for attention that it is, and I’ll continue to ignore it with a chuckle. You don’t get to set the agenda around here, little boy, so don’t expect the grownups to play along with your childish games.

  33. Ad rem says:

    Bobby,
    I bet you like to let other people “pee” on you too. Sick freak!

  34. “So according to our objectives, I win and you lose. Deal with it.”
    This from a racist wanker who’s been shown to be a hypocrite and a coward.
    So I guess we add “delusional” to the list – no, wait. That was shown a long time ago. My bad.
    “And since it’s such a waste of time interacting with you, I’m gonna have to deny you the attention that you seem to crave so much. I know you’ll come back with more taunts and name-calling, which I’ll recognize as the sad plea for attention that it is, and I’ll continue to ignore it with a chuckle.”
    See, Roberta, what you don’t understand is that you’re the dog, and I’m Pavlov. You’ll never fail to start with your putrid little “waaah! Waaaah! WAAAAAH!” act every time I show your skanky ass up. I know this, everyone here knows it, so it’s pretty pointless to deny it.
    Then again, little girl, you’ve long since proven that you’re Dan’s official Mistress Of The Pointless™, so it’s expected by now. You’re nothing but my little pansy-a$$ed bitch, Roberta, and it kills you that there’s nothing you can do about it. BWAH-HAHAHAHAHA…!!!!!