Had a very enjoyable and very lively debate yesterday with the Rightwing co-host of the Fairness Doctrine Radio show with Dr. Patrick O’Heffernan (to the Left) and Chuck Morse (on the Right).
I was invited to discuss the Occupy Wall Street movement, and Morse led off the questioning — with a bunch of unsupportable RW talking points, in my opinion — which meant things got very lively from the start…and stayed there.
I’d offer you more teasers, but I think I’ll just make you listen for yourself instead, if you’re interested. But, suffice to say, the photo posted below is sent with my compliments to Chuck. 🙂
(BTW, while the show is called Fairness Doctrine Radio, Morse, who says he came up with the name, is against restoration of the real Fairness Doctrine and offers some, um, interesting reasons why during our discussion. Ironically, however, while the show is “balanced” in that it features both Leftish and Right points of view via its co-hosts, and would have been perfectly appropriate on our public airwaves under the Fairness Doctrine, the show is largely confined to the Internet, instead of the public airwaves…where such debate might otherwise actually serve in the public interest, unlike most of the corporatized crap that is currently forced on the nation. In any case, that’s why the hosts sound like they are both on the phone. It’s because they are.)
Download MP3 or listen online below [appx 40 mins]…
The BRAD BLOG on the Air11/8/2011Occupying Fake RW Talking Points on the Radio · · · · · Occupying Fake RW Talking Points on the Radio0:00 0:00
Cheers, Chuck!…
The RW is lying about the occupy movement?
What a surprise!
I can’t blame them for trying but one can question why they think we will believe their endless hypocracy and lies.
Excellent picture. Too bad it doesn’t protest the politicians who sell themselves to the highest bidder, the real problem. That’s an inconvenient truth. Move the protest where it belongs
@Brad: Have you seen Robert Steele’s proposal for electoral reform?
http://bit.ly/s5qwFc
His 2 page handout for electoral reform is at the following link.
http://www.phibetaiota.net/2011...ided-hand-out/
Hi Brad,
Thank you for the work you do. I want to make some comments about the Community Reinvestment Act and the misconceptions being aired by the right wing about it.
The Act did not require banks to lower their lending standards, or force banks to give mortgage loans to unqualified borrowers. Of course if you’re a Republican, you would prefer not to lend to lend to blacks or other minorities. Not because they didn’t qualify for the loan, but because you didn’t like blacks or minorities.
The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”
Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).
Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.
http://www.businessweek.com/inv...ity_reinv.html
Oops indeed. This disinformation is being pushed by the pro-Wall St right wing in order to deflect the responsibility for the mortgage crisis away from the actual perpetrators. I am NOT defending Fannie/Freddie for their bad actions, but laying the blame at their doorstep is ignorant.
McThorogood – Hadn’t seen it previously, but at quick glance, it looks good to me! Similar to what we’ve been calling for around here for years. (Though please throw this demand into it as well! Can’t have one without the other!)
Bob – Thanks for the info! Much appreciated. Of course, that’s what I was trying to get at with Chuck on the radio show. But, as you may have noticed, he’s bought into the RW talking points. Facts and reality be damned!
Same old story. Just glad I was there this time to try to speak to it!