New home sales plunge 33% after tax credit expires

[sanjuro_ronin]

It is really simple. Count the bodies.

Count the bodies (American and foreigners) under Bush/Cheney.


If the number is lower under Obama then that's less bad than Bush/Cheney.


We didn't vote for Obama cause we loved him. We voted for him because we hated Bush.

1Bad65 can whine, moan, cast aspersions, call names, criticize etc. till the cows come home...

but in the end in the choice between the lesser of the evils it's really quite simple.

You count the corpses. The guy with a smaller pile of corpses on his watch is preferably to the guy with the bigger pile of corpses.

It's really just that simple.

The ends NEVER justify the means, on the contrary, it is the MEANS that lend validity to the End.

[Reality_Check]

You already did that.

Ah...the old "I know you are but what am I" maneuver.

I did, and he is a Professor at a friggin law school.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Regardless, as I pointed out already, he did not quote, or link to, any studies to support his contention. He did the same as you...made assertions without evidence. Try again.

That is your evidence? All he made were assertions. He literally quoted no evidence or studies supporting those assertions. Though I do like how he threw ACORN in there using words like "like" and "such as" for the old guilt by association trick. That article is polemic plain and simple. Try again.

1. Provide evidence that the CRA forced the banks subject to it's regulations to make bad loans.

2. Provide evidence as to what percentage of the total CRA loans written were bad.

3. Compare the percentage of defaulted CRA loans to the percentage of defaulted non-CRA loans.

4. Provide evidence of the number of CRA sub-prime/Alt-A loans as compared to the total number of sub-prime/Alt-A loans written.

5. Provide evidence of how many of those CRA sub-prime/Alt-A loans defaulted. Compare that to the total number of CRA sub-prime/Alt-A loans issued. A percentage would be fine.

6. Do the same as #5 for non-CRA loans.

7. Compare the percentage of CRA sub-prime/Alt-A loans that defaulted to the percentage of non-CRA sub-prime/Alt-A loans that defaulted.

I'll be waiting with bated breath. Though I fully expect you'll refuse on the account that I can look it up myself and why should you do the work for me.

[1bad65]

Regardless, as I pointed out already, he did not quote, or link to, any studies to support his contention. He did the same as you...made assertions without evidence. Try again.

So are you saying the law professor just made it up?

[Reality_Check]

So are you saying the law professor just made it up?

Appeal to authority fallacy.

I'm saying he, like you, has provided no evidence to support his assertion. Show me actual evidence, as I have already (repeatedly) provided to you.

That is your evidence? All he made were assertions. He literally quoted no evidence or studies supporting those assertions. Though I do like how he threw ACORN in there using words like "like" and "such as" for the old guilt by association trick. That article is polemic plain and simple. Try again.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Regardless, as I pointed out already, he did not quote, or link to, any studies to support his contention. He did the same as you...made assertions without evidence. Try again.

FYI, he is an economics professor. You should try reading your links once in a while.

[Reality_Check]

Here is another study supporting my point.

(LMI = low to moderate income)

http://traigerlaw.com/publications/T...ty_1-26-09.pdf

Critics of the CRA claim that the law compels banks to downgrade their credit standards in order to make mortgage loans to unqualified LMI borrowers. We hypothesized that if this was true, lending data from 2007, a time of tightened underwriting standards and regulatory emphasis on safety and soundness, would show significantly diminished lending to LMI borrowers by CRA-subject banks.

Instead, our analysis of 2007 data indicates that the percentage of LMI applications that were originated by CRA-subject banks remained stable even in the climate of heightened scrutiny and wariness that prevailed. This finding contradicts the notion that compliance with the CRA is dependent on imprudent lending. Thus, we conclude that the CRA cannot be rationally blamed for current problems in the mortgage market, much less for the U.S. financial crisis.

That CRA-subject banks continue to make mortgage loans to LMI borrowers while simultaneously strengthening their underwriting standards not only contradicts the claims of critics who blame the CRA for our present crisis, but also suggests that without the 32-year-old law, the home mortgage market might be in even worse condition. This suggestion is reinforced by our 2008 study, which showed CRA-subject banks were substantially less likely than other lenders to engage in the risky lending practices that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis. Moreover, a recent Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco review of LMI lending found “the CRA, and particularly its emphasis on loans made within a lender’s assessment area, helped to ensure responsible lending, even during a period of overall declines in underwriting standards.”

[1bad65]

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Parrott

Of course I'm going to use a professor at a law school to source an argument over a law. Who do you say I should use to buttress my arguments, a car mechanic?

[1bad65]

Here is another study supporting my point.

We hypothesized ...

We are supposed to be dealing in FACTS, not speculation.

[SanHeChuan]

They actually tested their hypothesis, that's the point. Did your Professor do that? And how are you going to have a study without a hypothesis? Do you even know what the scientific method is?

[1bad65]

Try this one San. It also shows how the CRA was strengthened in 1995. That's actually something I just recently found out. The law as written pre-1995 was not so bad. Post-1995 it was a huge problem.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-c...s-guide-2009-6

[Reality_Check]

Parrott

Of course I'm going to use a professor at a law school to source an argument over a law. Who do you say I should use to buttress my arguments, a car mechanic?

LOL...he's an economics professor, as I pointed out already. Perhaps you should not only read your links, but your posts as well.

Here ya go:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

FYI, Thomas J. DiLorenzo is a professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland .

[1bad65]

LOL...he's an economics professor, as I pointed out already. Perhaps you should not only read your links, but your posts as well.

You've still never answered my questions....