Simple.Powerful.Indisputable.

I'm guessing the lefturd arguments here will be something like: "But, Palin did this" or "McCain did that". (Attempted) deflection is the only counter to this video.

Come on, friends from the other side of the aisle, debunk it. Tear it apart. Attack!

I'd give it a 95 for beat, 0 for content.

This is the first I've known that the democrats have been in power for the last 31 years. Funny I though the Repubboobs were in charge for about 22 of them.

Oh that's right they were busy cheating on their wives as they tried to impeach a guy for the same thing. Too busty to fix a problem I guess.

JFO is up with deflection #1

EPIC FAIL

but thanks for trying!

JFO

Clinton was impeached for "LYING UNDER OATH". Geez I wish you people would get that straight. And guess what happens to anyone else who has sex at workplace and gets caught? But you're ok with your president getting away with it in the oval office?

Now how about the video JFO can you refute it, or is sophomoric rhetoric all you got?

"This is the first I've known that the democrats have been in power for the last 31 years."

You cannot be that dumb.

Yes he can.

Anyhow, leaving the under-bridge dweller out of it...I VERY rarely 'forward' stuff, but I sent a link to this to friends and family as well as a local newspaper columnist (and will probably sent it to more local newspaper people).

Thanks, JFO, for admitting that you are totally clueless of recent American history as well as being totally clueless as to how our government works.

That explains a lot.

Sadly the same is true of most Obama supporters.

It would suit me fine to keep this at the top of the blog all weekend long.

And the only criticism so far is that Republicans didn't want their president getting blow jobs in the Oval Office and lying under oath and asking others to lie under oath in a sexual harrassment suit. What? Give me a break.

Does anyone dispute the content of the video -- the first part about how we got here, not the end where it says McCain-Palin will save the day. Obviously Dems don't believe that, but what about the "how we got here" part?

Come on, friends from the other side of the aisle, debunk it. Tear it apart. Attack!

Half of subprime loans were issued by banks not governed by the CRA at all, and another 25-30% of them by subsidiaries and affiliates not fully governed by CRA.

I love when Lorie types 'Blow Jobs"

Seriously, I just e-mailed this to everyone I know in Wisconsin.(sadly, I'm in IL and it's hopeless here)

Wow..some of you are serious dummies indeed.

I will revise my first comment and move the score for beat to 98. It really is catchy.

Question to you committed wingers: have the dems caused every single problem the country has suffered in oh, say the last 50 years?We'll just limit it to that for now. You can rip on Roosevelt another time.

The meme currently intoned by the true believers on the right that the CRA caused this whole mess (with a helping of Clinton of course) is absurd on its face. The only folks who believe that are residents of this site and others like it.

By the way - while Clinton was busily enhancing the problem, as alleged, what was the Republican Congress doing? Oh, I know, silly me. They were cheating on their wives or delivering divorce papers while the ill wife was in the hospital. No time for oversight when you're out screwing (around so to speak) just like the president.

Many vitally important facts such as the deregulation of the financial industry in the Reagan years and very lax federal consumer protection during the Bush years which has only allowed for some many very shady sub-prime home loan companies to spring up are missing from this music video. Any truly honest evaluation of this crisis would consider all factors regardless of who is to blame. Instead this is merely politcal propaganda and of little real worth.

Instead this is merely politcal propaganda and of little real worth.

No, that would be the disclaimer to your comment, Paul.

Oh, I know, silly me. They were cheating on their wives or delivering divorce papers while the ill wife was in the hospital.

I see. The debunking of this video is that politicians cheat on their wives.

JFO, can you see you have not met the challenge to debunk any of the facts in the video? Do you realize your argument tries to stear away from it rather than dispute it?

Of COURSE you do - it's all you have.

Instead this is merely politcal propaganda and of little real worth.

Thanks for letting us know what you think is propaganda has no worth, Paul.

I also appreciate Obama's lawyers telling radio and television stations the same and trying to take legal action against anyone who *ahem* "lies" about Obama (I didn't make that up, if you've seen the video of Obama's legal team).

Your lame comment and weak defense is proof enough that this video cuts deep.

This is a horrible video for on just about any level. And this is why:

When you are making a political video, it must do one of three thing:

1) It must point out flaws in the opposition to present them with an indefensible position...and this fails because while the content it fantastic in blasting the Democrats, the video is too fast in changing scenes from one idea to the next to force them to change the rhetorical debate. A viewer from the opposition party will simple be lost through the changes and not engage in any critical thinking.

2) Energize the base. It doesn't do this either because all it does is throw red meat to the masses, without giving those who are already informed something else to point to.

3) Sway undecided voters. It fails to do this because it is horribly produced and doesn't allow a viewer to make their own logical conclusion. What it does is switch scenes and lead ins and leads the viewer through the talking points instead of giving them enough time to formulate their own reference point for debating these concepts with peers.

My suggestion would be for the video to be cut by 4 minutes and then lengthen the content, message, and transitions by 2 minutes, in order to make this video effective to those it is trying to persuade.

Other than that, it is just weak political masturbation.

It hurt you's wittle head, Sawb? Aw...

Everybody talk slower from now on...

You missed one, Fredo.

For those unable to understand it, the video accurately depicts a significant aspect of the current housing crisis and the role that the Democrats had in championing the major cause. It also accurately depicts two failed efforts at reform in the past couple of years championed by Bush and McCain. Each was killed in the Senate by Democrats, where it, to be honest, does not matter who is in the majority when it comes to quietly killing things. It accurately depicts Obama's ties with these people, fundraising-wise. These facts should not be in dispute for anyone that's taken a moment to read the stuff that appears in the video (I did, out of curiosity).

It does NOT claim that only Democrats are responsible. It does NOT claim that there are not other factors. It does broadbrush the MAJOR issues. And it does it in under 10 minutes (if you remove the minute of cheerleading at the end). And it does it in such a way that you can personally verify the findings on your own, instead of just being a passive receiver.

So far the trolls have done nothing but try to change the subject, because the facts are not on their side and they have nothing else to work with.

Amazing. The video names names, gives precise dates and attributions, spells out exactly what happened when, who did what, what they said at the time, who predicted what has happened, who derided those who have been proven to be right, who promised that what has happened would never happen, all in excruciating detail so clearly that almost any idiot can grasp it.

Almost.

Apparently, certain hyperpartisan idiots are clue-proof that they can simply parrot "but... but... the Republicans had a majority!" and presume that excuses everything, showing their ignorance also extends to the legislative process, and doesn't grasp the power a determined, unified large minority can do when they work against a party that lacks a supermajority.

What was the term tossed around over the last two years? "Obstructionists?" "Roadblock Republicans?" If they didn't have a majority, how the hell did they keep the Democrats from doing whatever the hell they wanted?

Good god, being that stupid should be painful. Very painful.

Actually, it is. Unfortunately, people like JFO are the Typhoid Marys of stupid pain -- they only give it, they don't suffer from it themselves.

J.

That point of view is interesting but everytime I see or read and interview with someone who is being foreclosed, it's always a suburbanite with twice as much house as anyone needs. Could it be that the source of the crisis isn't limited to the minorities? Remember, mortgage brokers get a percentage and they tend to go after a $1 million mortgage a lot harder than then they do a $50K loan.

This video really ignores a lot of the factors that contributed to create the subprime crisis.

As I understand it, at some point these subprime mortgages became a product that could be sold up the bank chain; from small community banks which granted the mortgage all the way up to large investment banks on wall street.

At the turn of the 20th century, there was a lot of international capital floating around. The first versionn of the mortgage product was aces as far as these investment banks were concerned. Investors couldn't get enough of these mortgages.

It was not that smaller banks were forced to make these loans; it was that they could sell bundles of them and in effect they were somebody elses problem. There was no risk to the smaller banks because they could pretty much sell the shitiest loan in the world to Bear Sterns or somebody else.

A bunch of math geeks understood that some of these loans were risky but computer models predicted default rates of around 4% (compared to 2-3% for traditional mortgages). The default rate turned out to be considerably higher (~8% I think, depending on how 'subprime' the loans are).

A lot of people got filthy fucking rich off this shit; they were not forced to do this, they already had incentive$. They also had a herd mentality. They did not want to be the one guy who wasn't buying, what they thought at the time, were if not awesome, at least ok financial products.

Obviously, nobody stopped them from doing this. The main problem with this video is its assertion that the CRA is responsible for the the subprime bubble. The opinions of most economic experts believe that it had zero to a modest effect. The majority of the subprime loans were not even made by companies regulated by the CRA.

Another thing this video does not mention that was important was most investors felt that Freddie/Fannie were implicitly guranteed by the federal government (turns out they were right). It was seen as a low risk high reward investment.

You know, you are right JFO, in that the Republicans could have stopped this and didn't. Sure, they did try some, but they could have tried a lot harder to either fix the problem with the laws or do away with the laws that caused it altogether.

But, if you're honest, you have to admit that it was Democrat economic policies that were the core cause of the problem. So the only honest argument you lefitsts can make is that this mess is not all the Democrat's fault because the Republicans did try hard enough to protect our economy from the Democrats economic policies.

Any other argument that attempts to shift blame the Republicans is false.

The problem is what we have seen time and time again. Forced fed govt regulations. less federal gov intervention/regulation is better. Hope whomever gets in office and in the positions shakes things up and revamps items to where they are more in sync with the constitution and streamlined.

My hubby works in the subprime business and he says this video is exactly what has gone down.

JFO you lose again.

Ka ching!

Yes, the only defense JFO has is "y'all didn't do enough to stop the democrats."

Notice how weak their defenses are now? In other words..."why didn't you republicans save us from ourselves?"

LOL. You can't make this stuff up!!!

I like how this ignores completely the much larger problem of credit default swaps and phil gramm's responsibility in this matter.

That must be because it leads straight to McCain's door.

With all the hyper-partisan bickering here, I should clarify: Democrats and Republicans both hold responsibility for this, but it is not a clearcut BLAME CRA and all those (Democrats) who supported it. If one man is to be crucified for this, it should be Phil Gramm.

MF,

While I'm all for capitalism, free markets, free trade and all that, I don't believe there should be no regulation.

I don't know if overregulation was entirely the problem here. I mean it seems to me that banks were encouraged to make bad loans (more regulation) while being allowed to make bad loans (deregulation). It was a mix of the two that led to where we are today.

Come to think of it, maybe this is a good argument for a "third" party?

sawb23 - "the video is too fast in changing scenes from one idea to the next to force them to change the rhetorical debate. A viewer from the opposition party will simple be lost through the changes and not engage in any critical thinking."

Got a problem with that huh?

Here bitch about it.

I like how this ignores completely the much larger problem of credit default swaps and phil gramm's responsibility in this matter.

Hazywater

Which person is more closely associated with credit default swaps?

Phil Gramm
Hank Paulson
John Corzine
Robert Rubin

That all depends on which newpapers and blogs you read, Hugh.

I think it's laughable how the libs commenting here want to bring Phil Gramm into the equation.

Hey, my pancakes were lousy this morning; should I blame Bisquick? Phil Gramm sponsors legislation that repeals Glass Stegall and he is all of a sudden responsible for Lehman's 30/1 debt to capital ratio?

That's an argument only a kosroid can repeat with a straight face. Or maybe Barney Frank. Or Chris Dodd.

Good point Bunyan....the echo chamber is at full volume now.

There is plenty of blame to go around on this one. I will say to encourage lending institutions to give loans to people who cannot really afford them goes beyond dumb. This is what happens when we try to "give" away things you must earn. ww

Yes, blame goes around pretty well when it comes to who took advantage of the situation, but it still does not address the simple fact that people tried to avert this crisis and Democrats pulled every rabbit out of every hat they could find to scuttle it. Period. Bush tried to get Congress to act on it. McCain co-sponsored a bill to try to avert it. Greenspan warned, in no uncertain terms, what would happen. And the list goes on and Democrats continued on their merry path telling everyone that everything was just fine while they bastardized every effort to write a meaningful bill to address it.

That is why we're here now.

Oh true that Oyster. That reminds me of a D.J. post earlier this year where he made the argument that we needed a Reagan back during the judge fillibuster/"gang of 14" thing. I agreed but argued that there wasn't one to be found.

This could be the same case. They needed to go over the heads of the Democrats right to the American public like Reagan did, but there was no Reagan in the group.

It would be cool if Gov. Palin can do that some day and, I think, not out of the question.

Many vitally important facts such as the deregulation of the financial industry in the Reagan years and very lax federal consumer protection during the Bush years which has only allowed for some many very shady sub-prime home loan companies to spring up are missing from this music video. Any truly honest evaluation of this crisis would consider all factors regardless of who is to blame. Instead this is merely politcal propaganda and of little real worth.

Oh good grief, some one buy this man a crutch.

YouTube took the video down. Here is the new link for anyone interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4