On the Fact that Banking, Mortgages, and Housing Were the Three Most Regulated Sectors of the American Economy and Yet this is Exactly Where the Problems Erupted Leading Up to the Financial Collapse

A total coinkydink, I gather. By which I mean I'm totally pushing the bullshit from the Right that OVER regulation caused the collapse. Because, when it comes to Libertarian lies concerning regulation of the financial sector being bad, I'm a total stooge for our plutocratic overlords.

For example, Cato says Gramm-Leach-Bliley (the law that repealed the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall) and allowed "the mixing of investment and commercial banking" was not responsible for the financial crisis. Cato says too much regulation is to blame. They say "Congress should repeal the Community Reinvestment Act".

And, given the fact that Cato is Libertarian Think Tank that I frequently reference on my other blog, Contra O'Reilly (although I usually don't say who I'm quoting), I completely agree with them. The blame, in my opinion, should be heaped upon government (via the CRA and Fannie and Freddie) and on poor people who could not afford homes being given loans they would never be able to pay back.

So what if this is total bullplop?

...the false narrative [is] that the financial crisis was caused by... government regulators [who] used the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to force banks to make loans to undeserving poor people and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased doomed subprime mortgage backed securities to meet the affordable housing goals. This [so goes the false narrative] was the main cause of the crisis. The argument that CRA and the affordable housing goals caused the crisis have been debunked time and time... again. The CRA has been in place since 1977, while subprime lending only skyrocketed in the 2000s. Even if one concentrates on the changes in enforcement of the act in 1995, the Act does nothing to explain the massive uptick in subprime lending concentrated from 2004 to 2006. What's more, most subprime lenders weren't banks and therefore weren't even subject to CRA. That's why only 6 percent of the high-cost mortgages at the time (a proxy for subprime) could even potentially qualify for CRA credit. Similarly, for most of the housing boom, Fannie and Freddie were on the sidelines due to their fairly strict underwriting requirements. By the time Fannie and Freddie lowered their standards in 2006 to buy riskier products, they were too late to the game to cause the subprime frenzy. Moreover, while they also bought private subprime mortgage backed securities for their investment portfolio – an inarguably bad idea – those purchases did little to meet the housing goals. For the most part, Fannie and Freddie-guaranteed loans have performed, and are still performing, remarkably better than the toxic products pioneered by subprime lenders. The real causes of the financial crisis were predatory mortgage products, out-of-control securitization and derivatives markets, and the failure of government regulators to crack down on the massive risk being taken by our nation's financial institutions. (Excerpt from No, Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis by David Sanchez. ThinkProgress 8/15/2013).

What this article points out is that I, Willis Hart, am totally full of shit! That does not matter to me, as I simply do not care what "Think Regress" says (even though this article accurately recounts the real causes of the financial crisis).

Because lazy low-skilled losers earning low wages (all they deserve) who wanted a home without earning it and government regulators "forcing" banks to loan them money they could never pay back is the better narrative, IMO.

Because it lets the real culprits totally off the hook! And, given that I am a stooge for the plutocrats who benefited from the crisis, I absolutely do NOT want them to be assigned any blame (even though they deserve it). Which is why I eagerly buy into the BS about OVER regulation being responsible for the financial crisis. Because if we were to crack down and increase the regulations... well, then the plutocrats couldn't do it again (make tons of money by duping poor people into signing up for predatory mortgages).

And that would be bad. Very bad.

Byline: This stoogish commentary was authored by the true-believing stooge Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of blind stoogery. LLIN-166.

Lying Lester Dissembles About Fascism

Fascism is typically viewed as a lEftist political and economic system. This is true if lEftist is to mean a strong central government with great influence on and regulation over a nation's economic matters. In other words private ownership of business exists but the government essentially establishes economic policy through over burdensome regulations.

As an adherent of the great philosopher Ayn Rand, this is a view that I share. Even though it is complete BS. Some view conservatives and rEpublicans as drivers of our politics and government in the direction towards fascism, which is a lot closer to the truth. Like Mussolini, rEpublicans want to put business in control by freeing them from "over regulation" and "over taxation".

And by placing the burden of taxation on the lower classes, where it belongs. Anyway, while Lying Lester acknowledges that he STRONGLY desires that the United States go fascist, he will continue to lie (as in the opening paragraph of this commentary) and claim that lEftism leads to fascism.

Because the rAbble fears fascism, even though Lying Lester recognizes that under fascism the deserving wealthy are in charge (as they should be). Although some quack named Dr. Lawrence Britt claims that, when combined with other traits exhibited by fascism, the case can be made that it is conservatives and rEpublicans who are more likely to meet the criteria for fascism.

I call the guy a quack not because he is wrong, but because he may cause some of the rAbble to wake up to the truth. The truth about rEpublicans and fascism, that is. Which, if the dream of bringing fascism to the United States is to be realized, is a truth that must be concealed.

For more on this truth I recommend Dr. Leonard Peikoff's work entitled The Ominous Parallels, a fabulous book on the parallels between Nazi Germany and modern day uSA. Note the book was published in 1982 and supports at least in part Dr. Britt's list of 14 characteristics of fascism.

So, after reading the list by Dr. Britt (and considering what you know about fascism) I thought it would be fun to see how many characteristics of fascism you identify as existing in out political and governmental systems today under the Obama Administration. I suspect not that many, or fewer than under the bush administration.

But associating the lEftist Obama with fascism is, as I pointed out earlier, necessary to frighten the gullible rAbble into voting rEpublican. Or perhaps (and this would be preferable), Libertarian. Because the Libertarians are with the rEpublicans when it comes to putting the wealthy in charge.

Although - and this is where the crucial difference comes in - Libertarians are for getting government out of the way completely. Unlike the rEpublicans politicians, who favor leaving themselves in place as corrupt middlemen (skimming off some of the booty stolen from the people for themselves). That "booty" being money and power.

Libertarians, on the other hand, strongly disagree with the concept of a corrupt political class receiving any of this booty. In the opinion of the Libertarians this booty should go exclusively to our wealthy overlords - and the political class should be eliminated - or "shrunk" so as to eliminate the voice of The People (AKA the rAbble) entirely.

Because, even though under dEmocracy the plutocrats have done a decent job bribing our elected representatives (corrupting most rEpublican and many conservative dEmocrats), there still are some politicians who actually listen to The People and try to do their will.

Obviously this is unacceptable and, while this course may EVENTUALLY lead to fascism, the only way to get their QUICKLY is by going Libertarian (which is the reason this sight supports Gary Johnson for President in 2016). Only then (under Libertarianism) will fascism be brought quickly and completely to the United States.

But back to my noble desire to dissemble on fascism and pin the accusation on lEftist pRogressivism, as my colleague dmarks does over on my other (spoof) blog rAtional nAtion uSA by lying about labor unions.

According to the (2nd) quack I site above, "labor power is suppressed - because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government [and under fascism] labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed".

dmarks spins this with a reference to Right To Work (RTW) as empowering workers, because Labor Unions are "crushing labor rights by bullying workers into [them] against their will".

Ha, ha, ha. You've got to admire an individual who is willing to tell such audacious and patently absurd lies like dmarks. Because, in all honesty, RTW is designed to kill unions, thus enabling the plutocrats free rain to bully and take advantage of workers. But, as one NAZI fascist said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it".

Spreading the "big lies" that will benefit our wealthy overlords when the rAbble believe them is the objective on my other blog, rAtional nAtion uSA. dmarks buys into one of these big lies concerning Labor. I'd say "hats off" to him in helping spread this lie, but the deluded doofus actually believes the BS he spouts, which is quite sad and pathetic.

But also fortunate, in that even if it is deluded doofuses spreading these Big Lies - as opposed to people who KNOW they are dissembling (people like Lying Lester) - the spreading of these lies will still work to the benefit of our wealthy betters.

The thing to remember is that Blue Dogs (corporate dEms) like Obama should be painted with the fascist brush, because even if a corporate dEmocrat like Obama is in charge, the end result is an empowering of other dEmocrats, including pRogressive dEmocrats, the most dangerous wing of the dEmocratic pArty. Dangerous because they actually listen to The People (AKA the rAbble).

Also remember that pRogressive dEmocrats are the ENEMY. The enemy of hard working Makers like Lying Lester who's only desire is to see the deserving Wealthy come to power and remake (or "fundamentally transform") America by subjugating the rAbble and seizing ALL the power and (most) of the money. Thus fulfilling Ayn Rand's dream. A dream, by the way, that is also Lying Lester's (and the Libertarian Party's) dream.

In closing Lying Lester urges you to vote Libertarian in 2016 when you can (if a Libertarian is on the ballot). In instances when a Libertarian isn't on the ballot vote rEpublican. But whatever you do DO NOT vote for a "fascist" dEmocrat! Even a Corporate dEmocrat.

Byline: This dishonest commentary was dissembled by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-157.

A Lying Lester False Narrative Regarding dEmocrats and Impeachment Talk

Just wondering how many individuals realized that, according to The Hill, "Congressional Democrats have talked about the impeachment of President Obama 20 times more than Republicans have on the House and Senate floors".

I'm willing to bet not many. I know I didn't. So, it appears the democrats view keeping talk of impeachment on the front burner to be a great way to snag those donor dollars and ignite, or perhaps incense is a better word, the lEftist base of the dEmocrat party.

I guess when there ain't all that much positive going for your party going into an election year you take what you can get. In any case, I gotta give credit where credit is due, and the dEms seem more effective of late at exploiting the absurd.

The absurdity of the obstructing rEpublican congress actually impeaching Obama, as many within the Tea Party wish to do, or the absurdity of Lying Lester suggesting that Tea Partiers actually suggesting impeachment should NOT be talked about by the dEmocrats.

One of these is actually absurd and the other is not. But Lying Lester chooses (as he always does) to push the false narrative on his other blog, rAtional nAtion uSA.

But are the American people dumb enough to fall for this false narrative? Lying Lester hopes they are, and oBama's falling poll number seriously suggest that they are. All good news in this Libertarian blogger's opinion.

Because the more false narratives and total bullshit regarding our current POTUS that the American people can be sold, the greater the likelihood that our next President will not be a dEmocrat.

And, while Lying Lester is pulling for Gary Johnson, or whomever the Libertarian candidate might be (Lying Lester, perhaps?), a rEpublican pResident would not be as bad as another sOcialist - and you know Ayn Rand would agree.

Byline: This false narrative was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Untruth. LLIN-106.