I understand all of that. But really, shouldn't they have to eat that? After all, they all went along with the ride. They made the loans to those people. They knew (or should have known) what they were doing. When you take risks, the upside is profit, the downside is the opposite. Still, the houses are worth something, even if the mortgage was a bad one. They are probably worth now what they should've been worth to begin with.

Do the math again.

I don't want to do the math. I understand the math. Do you understand my argument, or question rather?

Honestly, if banks had just renegotiated those mortgages to begin with, this may not have happened. Really.

And... whoever heard of an appraisal person asking the seller what price they would like their house appraised at? There was all kinds of trickses going on.

Yeah, there was some (a lot of) underhanded shenanigans going on, especially in the subprime market.

But more than that, even intelligent people were making some poor choices when overwhelmed with all the legalese and "expert" opinions. Here's an article in NewScientist about how people tend to accept what "experts" say, even when it goes against their common sense.

Therein lies the problem with your argument.

CURL: Stimulus oversight left up to taxpayers

Oh? Oh???? and second....

Wow..A Washington Times editorial writer who doesnt like the process to provide ARRA transparency, including making it relatively easy for anyone to find out more about funded programs.

What A surprise.

Way to see only what you want - you're transparency is showing Dux.

In fact, what I saw about a week or so ago, was the full testimony of Devaney, the head of the ARRA accountability board....and not just the few sentences w/o context in the partisan editorial that you evidently find so meaningful.

But it is what you and Merc do best.....in your "gotcha" game. You two really are interchangeable.

You cut and past a partisan editorial.

You rarely, if ever offer your own opinion with your initial post/link - perhaps just a one-line snide comment.

And you never provide any context at all.

Its a bullshit way to encourage discussion and it just gets tiresome after awhile.

Carry on without me.

Gladly. :yelsick:

Edit: Actually sorry to hear you have that attitude about people who disagree with you. I have learned some stuff from your contribution, not much, but it has been measurable. You might just want to take a break and try again later.

It is not at all about people who disagree with me.

I learn from undertoad and lookout....I even learn from UG.....because they post and discuss their own opinions.

It is a matter of style.

As I said, it has just gotten tiresome for me to respond to one after another after another of the partisan editorials that cherry pick the facts (in this latest case, two sentences out of two hours of testimony) that you and classic throw out repeatedly with a "gotcha" attitude as a basis for discussion....w/o even offering your own opinions.

I can read partisan editorials (on both sides) w/o coming here.

I'm done.

Sure.

Those are direct quotes from him - His first priority is a website - and as an afterthought and by his own admission the second is the other which seems much more important to any relatively intelligent human.

You choose to bring up some other bullshit and avoid the point again. Thats fine, I'm used to your deflections. You learned very well from the politicians you work with/for.

... as an afterthought ? and by his own admission ? WTF are you talking about?

Why not read his FULL opening statement (pdf) for yourself, as part of two hours of his testimony that goes into a bit more detail on the two distinct, but equally important roles of the board than you were led to believe in your partisan editorial - transparency (public website) and oversight (including meetings with federal/state officials w/oversight responsibility for the disbursement and use of the funds).

Right...I guess it is bullshit to suggest that there might have been more to his testimony than the two quotes cherry-picked by a partisan editorial writer.

Fine with me. Your blind fealty to such partisan editorials is laughable if not ignorant.

TW may have it right....You're either just a wacko who believes whatever the wingnuts throw your way OR too fucking lazy to take the time to look beyond those spoon fed talking points before jumping on their bandwagon.

You didn't read the rest of my reply, obviously.

There was no reason to read anymore, even though I did. If you understand what the issue is then there is no issue. :shrug: