| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Henry Plainview 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
 Posted: September 25 2008 at 15:07 |
 crimhead wrote:
laplace wrote:
pick a hundred of the most visible complicit people and have them burned at the stake. between this and the farcical election run-up, the onlooker concludes that the US way of living is insane and unsustainable and its morals shallow |
Some people are already predicting that this election won't be decided til January. What fun times again if that happens.
Burning at the streak is too good for them. Make them live and work in the inner cities away from their palaces and see how they like living like the vast majority does.
|
Last I heard, the vast majority of people do not live in inner cities...
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
 |
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
|
Posted: September 25 2008 at 15:09 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
It is necessary, unless you libertarian people want another Great Depression.
npjnpj wrote:
I'm not really a great believer in conspiracies (apart from 9/11, say) |
Did I just read that? Please tell me I didn't just read that correctly.
rushfan4 wrote:
They also said that the bailout amounts to $10,000 per household. Personally, instead of giving $700 billion to Wall Street I would prefer that they write me a check for $10,000. I suspect I could do some pretty good damage with $10,000. |
But what good is $10,000 if you have nothing to spend it on? I don't think you people understand the magnitude of all our banks collapsing when you so cavalierly say NO MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE!
But that doesn't mean I think they're doing a good job, that quote from the spokesperson is unbelievable. |
EXACTLY 
The banks are responsible by lending to people who should not have received loans and the people who borrowed against an inflated wealth in their house are responsible as well. People who signed for loans that they had no business borrowing are also just as responsible. This isn't just a bunch of big bankers this about millions of people losing their houses and jobs.
Millions of people who took no part in this are going to suffer. Then to extend it a little further the banks doesn't have the money to lend to business who borrow all the time to keep their cash flow goings for such trivial things as your next paycheck. The bailout would remove the bad loans to allow the banks to continue to keep lending. It is that serious. We are facing a far flung recession that we may not recover from for several decades. This would plunge the world into it as well.
Please at least research what this about before posting about it.
Edited by Garion81 - September 25 2008 at 15:10
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
|
|
Syzygy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 16 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 7003
|
Posted: September 25 2008 at 16:47 |
The credit crunch came about because banks loaned money to people who couldn’t pay it back. That’s right, the upstanding guardians of our finances, the people we entrust with our savings and pensions, the people into whose system most of our paychecks are fed directly every month, effectively walked into a bookmaker’s with all our money and lost it betting on a 3 legged donkey. Then governments use taxpayer’s money – our money – to bail them out. There was really no need to throw that money away in the first place. The banks were profitable and operating in a time of remarkable prosperity and security, so the only real motive for behaving so irresponsibly was the temptation of a fast profit. Or, to put it another way, uncontrolled greed.
And what of the irresponsible borrowers? Vast hordes of the financially disadvantaged did not storm the City brandishing pitchforks and flaming torches, demanding unlimited credit. No, highly paid experts dreamed up a range of financial products and services aimed specifically at that sector of the market, and then spent huge amounts money aggressively targeting them. People who previously could never have got near a mortgage were actively encouraged to borrow way above their ability to pay back if there was even a minor financial hiccup solely so they could get a toe onto the bottom rung of the property ladder. Then the whole house of cards collapsed. ‘You can’t interfere with the market’ suddenly gave way to ‘Bail us out! Now!’.
Just as a bad workman blames his tools, so does a bad business blame its customers.
The banking system was totally complicit in all of this, and then either didn't see the crisis forming or ignored it in the hope that it would go away, and the same is true of the first MBA qualified president and a government who proclaimed 'It's the economy, stupid!'
Of course something needs to be done, but there should be consequences. First Enron and now this - to say nothing of numerous other crises - surely prove that unfettered free market capitalism is as ludicrous and redundant a concept as Soviet socialism.
(not originally written for PA)
Edited by Syzygy - September 25 2008 at 16:48
|
|
'Like so many of you
I've got my doubts about how much to contribute
to the already rich among us...'
Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: September 25 2008 at 17:35 |
BaldFriede wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
NaturalScience wrote:
The bail out funds come from the American public, or rather that we borrow the money and need to pay it back.
No one is happy about the proposed plan, but almost every economist agrees that failure to act and shore up the financial/credit system will hurt so much more - the most pain going to the "little guy" if businesses start failing.
And in the future, you don't need to be so condescending. I was making a good faith effort for debrewguy to clarify his post. I assure you I'm not as stupid as you think I am.
|
So what? These "experts" know which side their toast is buttered on. "Whose bread I eat, whose song I sing", as a German proverb says.
No, there will be no real harm done if these banks collapse, even if a lot of firms collapse in their wake. The means of production are still there; they only have to be given to someone else. They are the real wealth, not stocks and money.
|
A big part of our economy is service economy. And by "service" I don't mean coffee shops. It's a financial service economy if you please. The stock market alone represents 30% of the economy. THe manufacturins is shrinking. The means of production are constantly being given to someone else. Someone else overseas. Can you imagine what will happen if half of the economy implodes? |
The stock market is a pseudo-economy in the first place. The original idea of stocks was to give those who offered stocks a financial basis for operations. But today the stock market has lost connection with that idea completely; stocks have become a value for themselves.
No matter how important servicing is, the most important thing is still the production of goods. You can't live on services at all. And the means of production are there unless a natural catastrophe destroys them. The means of servicing, in essence manpower, are also there; they will not disappear just because a few firms go bankrupt. There will, however, have to be a reassessment of values, which is long overdue in the first place anyway.
|
Financial industry is an integral part of any modern economy. I'm not going to discuss the merits and original purpose of stock markets as it's irrelevant. Collapse of major financial institutions may cause so much pain that no reassessment of values can justify it.
As for service vs manufacturing/ agriculture/ science, the means of production became so technologically advanced that modern production of goods requires very few workers to sustain high levels of output to provide for the entire population. THe remaining work force, freed from production, is employed in services. On top of that, using your beloved Marxist terminology, the division of labor in the global economy is not what it used to be when Marx wrote about it. Today it spans the globe. Labor intensive industries are transferred to low labor cost markets. Thus a service economy can exist
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: September 25 2008 at 18:02 |
Garion81 wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
It is necessary, unless you libertarian people want another Great Depression.
npjnpj wrote:
I'm not really a great believer in conspiracies (apart from 9/11, say) |
Did I just read that? Please tell me I didn't just read that correctly.
rushfan4 wrote:
They also said that the bailout amounts to $10,000 per household. Personally, instead of giving $700 billion to Wall Street I would prefer that they write me a check for $10,000. I suspect I could do some pretty good damage with $10,000. |
But what good is $10,000 if you have nothing to spend it on? I don't think you people understand the magnitude of all our banks collapsing when you so cavalierly say NO MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE!
But that doesn't mean I think they're doing a good job, that quote from the spokesperson is unbelievable. |
EXACTLY
The banks are responsible by lending to people who should not have received loans and the people who borrowed against an inflated wealth in their house are responsible as well. People who signed for loans that they had no business borrowing are also just as responsible.
|
Now let's do that in reverse.
From what I hear, a couple of years ago to get a mortgage one had just to appear at the bank's door. No credit check, no income check, no downpayment. It's like you're walking down the street and someone gives you a nice chunk of money. Would you refuse?
The banks were in a similar situation. The Fed flooded them with funds. If they just kept the money in their vaults, what good would it do? Besides, nobody asked them what they were doing with it and how they checked the prospective applicants.
So who's responsible? Here comes the Federal Reserve Bank.
Edited by IVNORD - September 25 2008 at 18:06
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: September 25 2008 at 19:23 |
IVNORD wrote:
Garion81 wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
It is necessary, unless you libertarian people want another Great Depression.
npjnpj wrote:
I'm not really a great believer in conspiracies (apart from 9/11, say) |
Did I just read that? Please tell me I didn't just read that correctly.
rushfan4 wrote:
They also said that the bailout amounts to $10,000 per household. Personally, instead of giving $700 billion to Wall Street I would prefer that they write me a check for $10,000. I suspect I could do some pretty good damage with $10,000. |
But what good is $10,000 if you have nothing to spend it on? I don't think you people understand the magnitude of all our banks collapsing when you so cavalierly say NO MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE!
But that doesn't mean I think they're doing a good job, that quote from the spokesperson is unbelievable. |
EXACTLY
The banks are responsible by lending to people who should not have received loans and the people who borrowed against an inflated wealth in their house are responsible as well. People who signed for loans that they had no business borrowing are also just as responsible.
|
Now let's do that in reverse.
From what I hear, a couple of years ago to get a mortgage one had just to appear at the bank's door. No credit check, no income check, no downpayment. It's like you're walking down the street and someone gives you a nice chunk of money. Would you refuse?
The banks were in a similar situation. The Fed flooded them with funds. If they just kept the money in their vaults, what good would it do? Besides, nobody asked them what they were doing with it and how they checked the prospective applicants.
So who's responsible? Here comes the Federal Reserve Bank. |
The Fed was selling ABCPs ? That is how the banks were able to "justify" financing the mortgages. They were bundled and sold as securities, investments, to other financial institutions around the world. I really wish I knew why you think the Fed is a conspiratorial entity ????????? The reality from the S & L debacle is that those who profited kept their money, and the American Taxpayer paid. And that experience was so enlightening and effective at preventing other such events. Soooooooooooooooooo, if that bailout didn't do much, why not just give the money to the American people, and let them spend as they see fit. Whether it's investing, buying or saving or paying down debt. Let's face it, the money will go through the system , eh.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: September 26 2008 at 08:11 |
debrewguy wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Garion81 wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
It is necessary, unless you libertarian people want another Great Depression.
npjnpj wrote:
I'm not really a great believer in conspiracies (apart from 9/11, say) |
Did I just read that? Please tell me I didn't just read that correctly.
rushfan4 wrote:
They also said that the bailout amounts to $10,000 per household. Personally, instead of giving $700 billion to Wall Street I would prefer that they write me a check for $10,000. I suspect I could do some pretty good damage with $10,000. |
But what good is $10,000 if you have nothing to spend it on? I don't think you people understand the magnitude of all our banks collapsing when you so cavalierly say NO MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE!
But that doesn't mean I think they're doing a good job, that quote from the spokesperson is unbelievable. |
EXACTLY
The banks are responsible by lending to people who should not have received loans and the people who borrowed against an inflated wealth in their house are responsible as well. People who signed for loans that they had no business borrowing are also just as responsible.
|
Now let's do that in reverse.
From what I hear, a couple of years ago to get a mortgage one had just to appear at the bank's door. No credit check, no income check, no downpayment. It's like you're walking down the street and someone gives you a nice chunk of money. Would you refuse?
The banks were in a similar situation. The Fed flooded them with funds. If they just kept the money in their vaults, what good would it do? Besides, nobody asked them what they were doing with it and how they checked the prospective applicants.
So who's responsible? Here comes the Federal Reserve Bank. |
The Fed was selling ABCPs ? That is how the banks were able to "justify" financing the mortgages. They were bundled and sold as securities, investments, to other financial institutions around the world. |
Yea, they bundled the mortgages and sold them as MBS's, but where did the money come from? In a "proper" economy it should come from savings. In our case the capital was provided by the Fed in the form of extra liquidity supposedly to stimulate the economy. Just look at the money supply charts for the past 40-50 years.
debrewguy wrote:
I really wish I knew why you think the Fed is a conspiratorial entity ????????? |
Why cry conspiracy? It's done in an absolutely legal way as the Fed has this immense power to "stabilize the fanancial system." It's called the Fed economic and financial policy. Its main idea is to avoid recessions at any cost. The staggering inflation is a direct result of it although the public is fed all this bullsh*t about a 2% annual inflation rate.
debrewguy wrote:
Soooooooooooooooooo, if that bailout didn't do much, why not just give the money to the American people, and let them spend as they see fit. Whether it's investing, buying or saving or paying down debt. Let's face it, the money will go through the system , eh.
|
What a nice 2-week feast all of us would have then, ah! And in a few more weeks another handout. "Bread and circuses" - panem et circenses. Nice
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: September 26 2008 at 08:18 |
IVNORD wrote:
debrewguy wrote:
The Fed was selling ABCPs ? That is how the banks were able to "justify" financing the mortgages. They were bundled and sold as securities, investments, to other financial institutions around the world. |
Yea, they bundled the mortgages and sold them as MBS's, but where did the money come from? In a "proper" economy it should come from savings. |
BTW the MBS have been in circulation ever since Fannie Mae was created. It worked for as long as it was properly done
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: September 26 2008 at 12:39 |
|
Wonder why Republicans conservatives aren't just writing the blank cheque that Bush has asked ?
Is it that the thought of regulations being required has thrown them off balance ?
Anyway, Bush will argue that you can't put too many restrictions so as not to impede the free market, while intruding in the free market to save those who were its' most prominent boosters.
you're right IV, let's give it up, and hand it over as meekly and unquestioning as the S & L bucket brigade did.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: September 26 2008 at 16:34 |
debrewguy wrote:
you're right IV, let's give it up, and hand it over as meekly and unquestioning as the S & L bucket brigade did.
|
Now your talking man. You sound fatalistic and you're right. You can question the bailout all you want, but the end result will be just the same. Bear in mind that our government does not strive to please the common folks. Its main goal here is to support a vibrant economy, i.e. the big business. Presumably everyone could benefit from it then. Whether it's right or wrong is open to debate, but we have very little say in it.
debrewguy wrote:
Wonder why Republicans conservatives aren't just writing the blank cheque that Bush has asked ? |
It seems they played it McCain's way. Let's see how the final deal is structured. If they make it a loan to the banks requiring insurance and interest payments, the public will be ecstatic, and if they advertise it in a nice way to make McCain the bailout hero, it may tip the scales. Very clever. The Dems rushed with their handouts to help with avoiding foreclosures and didn't see the forestr behind the trees
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: September 26 2008 at 23:01 |
As quoted from the CBC's (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) Washington correspondant Henry Champ sept 26 column (URL - http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/champblog/2008/09/measuring_mccain_the_distracti.html) "Let's look at the timeline that led McCain to Washington.
It starts Wednesday at 8 a.m., when Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of
Oklahoma calls Barack Obama and suggests that Obama and McCain put out
a joint statement supporting the congressional effort since so many of
the positions the two candidates have on this issue are the same.
Coburn and Obama have worked together before. Coburn says this could be helpful. Obama agrees.
He phones McCain with the idea. McCain says: Not a bad idea, let me get back to you.
In the meantime, McCain phones the White House. He suggests that
Bush call a summit of congressional leaders, as well as Obama and
McCain, to add support to the legislative effort. Oh, and allow me, Mr.
President, to make the suggestion public. It could help my image, one
presumes he suggests. Bush agrees.
McCain then calls Obama, six hours after Obama's morning call and agrees to a joint statement.
Within minutes, McCain has called a press conference, suspended his
campaign, tried to delay the debate, announced a White House summit. In
Florida, Obama is floored.
Senior Democrats are furious as well. Banking committee chairman
Chris Dodd calls this effort an "unwarranted three-hour distraction."
Bailout plan will succeed
Thursday, McCain arrives in Washington but never joins the
deliberations. Senate majority leader Harry Reid asks for, but never
receives, a statement on where McCain wants to go on the issues. Reid
later says: "I have asked John McCain where he stands and the only
stand I've seen is when McCain is in front of a microphone."
Reporters ask the principals how often over the last days McCain
been in contact with them. "Never" and "seldom" are the answers.
McCain does meet with dissident House Republicans, but neither
supports or rejects their position. What those Republicans do figure
out, though, is that cover has arrived.
They go to the White House and say they will vote no on any package. This package is dead, they tell the media.
Earlier, we mentioned sausage-making. There is no chance this
bailout package will be ditched. But its final form is yet to be
determined.
Now it's Friday afternoon. Guess what? The debate is back on. Press conferences are indicating that progress is being made.
Recently, polls have steadily showed Obama inching ahead and the
issue propelling him is the economy. That fact may have unsettled
McCain, caused him to give in to his known risk-taking side. He did get
a photo at the White House.
He did make a difference in the process.
It was a negative one."
As far as giving up, the point was to say " let's just hand over the money again and again until they learn their lesson; 'cause we sure don't seem to learn ours!" Add to this, that Bush seems insistent that taking any time to think things out will cause more damage than good. IF my government is going to throw $700 billion (estimates are that it will eventually come in at a trillion) at a problem not of its' making, then they better take the time and do it right. Haste makes waste, and IV, you said that governments have a tendency to do so.
And Bush saying that he doesn't believe that regulations should be to strict so as not to impede the free market ... well, as the Republican Conservatives are telling him - free markets mean winners and losers. The losers shouldn't be entitled to bailouts because of greed and bad planning.
If the free market needs government bailouts and subsidies, then the government is well withing its' rights to impose regulations to hopefully avoid the same thing happening again. Self regulation didn't work in the S & L scandal, it didn't do a damn thing to stop the Long Term Mgmt hedge fund from blowing up, and the financial and investment industry proved once more this time that they have no clue how to so.
Let's try something new.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: September 27 2008 at 07:05 |
Let's not crap around, it's very simple:
1) You as a customer give me (I'm the bank) a dollar for safekeeping.
2) I gamble and loose it.
3) I get another dollar from you via the tax you pay.
4) I use that dollar to pay you back, and we're all square.
Gimme a break! All that bullsh*t talk is not going to camouflage what's going on, luckily, the people seem to be upset enough to see what's going on, for once.
Edited by npjnpj - September 27 2008 at 07:05
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: September 27 2008 at 13:05 |
Saddest Thing About This Mess: Congress Had Chance To Stop It
BY TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Could the crisis at Fannie Mae (FNM) - Freddie Mac (FRE) and the subprime meltdown have been avoided?
The answer is yes.
As early as 1992, alarm bells were going off on the threat Fannie and Freddie posed to our financial system and our economy. Intervention at any point could have staved off today's crisis. But Democrats in Congress stood in the way.
As the president recently said, Democrats have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me . . . to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
No, it wasn't President Bush who said that; it was President Clinton, Democrat, speaking just last week.
Interesting, because it was his administration's relentless focus on multiculturalism that led to looser lending standards and regulatory pressure on banks to make mortgage loans to shaky borrowers.
Freddie and Fannie, backed by an "implicit" taxpayer guarantee, bought hundreds of billions of dollars of those subprime loans.
The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials (and some Republicans), worked with Wall Street to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.
As the housing market continued to fall in 2007, subprime loan portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on — though it was 15 years in the making.
Democrats Blocked Reform
Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, WorldCom and other early-2000s scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era, the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.
But Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie. Democrats opposed them, especially Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key banking panels.
History is utterly clear on this.
After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the "systemic risk" posed by Fannie and Freddie, Congress held hearings the next year.
But nothing was done. Why? Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.
"We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.
In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid ever.
Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
The plan included a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, one that could boost capital mandates and look at how they managed risk.
Even after regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by Fannie and Freddie executives to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost bonuses, Democrats killed reform.
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Frank, then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
North Carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."
In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."
McCain Urged Changes
That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."
Sen. Harry Reid — now Majority Leader — accused the GOP of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership."
The bill went nowhere.
This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.
Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.
That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion.
|
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
Posted: September 27 2008 at 18:48 |
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: September 27 2008 at 23:20 |
It WOULD be a good idea.....
but the government will f*ck it up.
Either accidentaly or on purpose (^ looking at crimhead's post)
Every week I see something else that pisses me off more
I want Socialism!!!!!
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: September 28 2008 at 07:55 |
IVNORD wrote:
Saddest Thing About This Mess: Congress Had Chance To Stop It
BY TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Could the crisis at Fannie Mae (FNM) - Freddie Mac (FRE) and the subprime meltdown have been avoided?
The answer is yes.
As early as 1992, alarm bells were going off on the threat Fannie and Freddie posed to our financial system and our economy. Intervention at any point could have staved off today's crisis. But Democrats in Congress stood in the way.
As the president recently said, Democrats have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me . . . to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
No, it wasn't President Bush who said that; it was President Clinton, Democrat, speaking just last week.
Interesting, because it was his administration's relentless focus on multiculturalism that led to looser lending standards and regulatory pressure on banks to make mortgage loans to shaky borrowers.
Freddie and Fannie, backed by an "implicit" taxpayer guarantee, bought hundreds of billions of dollars of those subprime loans.
The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials (and some Republicans), worked with Wall Street to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.
As the housing market continued to fall in 2007, subprime loan portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on — though it was 15 years in the making.
Democrats Blocked Reform
Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, WorldCom and other early-2000s scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era, the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.
But Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie. Democrats opposed them, especially Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key banking panels.
History is utterly clear on this.
After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the "systemic risk" posed by Fannie and Freddie, Congress held hearings the next year.
But nothing was done. Why? Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.
"We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.
In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid ever.
Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
The plan included a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, one that could boost capital mandates and look at how they managed risk.
Even after regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by Fannie and Freddie executives to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost bonuses, Democrats killed reform.
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Frank, then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
North Carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."
In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."
McCain Urged Changes
That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."
Sen. Harry Reid — now Majority Leader — accused the GOP of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership."
The bill went nowhere.
This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.
Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.
That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion.
|
So can you tell me why exactly when the Republicans had control of the house and senate and then the house, senate, and the presidency (not to mention the supreme court) they didn't bother to take action to correct this? Lord knows they rammed through plenty of crap that wasn't good for this country. Oh, I get it, they were too busy pushing through crap that wasn't good for the country to attend to this matter.  When you point the finger you just may have three pointing back at you.
Edited by Slartibartfast - September 28 2008 at 07:58
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: September 28 2008 at 12:21 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Saddest Thing About This Mess: Congress Had Chance To Stop It
BY TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Could the crisis at Fannie Mae (FNM) - Freddie Mac (FRE) and the subprime meltdown have been avoided?
The answer is yes.
As early as 1992, alarm bells were going off on the threat Fannie and Freddie posed to our financial system and our economy. Intervention at any point could have staved off today's crisis. But Democrats in Congress stood in the way.
As the president recently said, Democrats have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me . . . to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
No, it wasn't President Bush who said that; it was President Clinton, Democrat, speaking just last week.
Interesting, because it was his administration's relentless focus on multiculturalism that led to looser lending standards and regulatory pressure on banks to make mortgage loans to shaky borrowers.
Freddie and Fannie, backed by an "implicit" taxpayer guarantee, bought hundreds of billions of dollars of those subprime loans.
The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials (and some Republicans), worked with Wall Street to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.
As the housing market continued to fall in 2007, subprime loan portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on — though it was 15 years in the making.
Democrats Blocked Reform
Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, WorldCom and other early-2000s scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era, the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.
But Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie. Democrats opposed them, especially Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key banking panels.
History is utterly clear on this.
After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the "systemic risk" posed by Fannie and Freddie, Congress held hearings the next year.
But nothing was done. Why? Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.
"We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.
In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid ever.
Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
The plan included a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, one that could boost capital mandates and look at how they managed risk.
Even after regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by Fannie and Freddie executives to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost bonuses, Democrats killed reform.
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Frank, then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
North Carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."
In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."
McCain Urged Changes
That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."
Sen. Harry Reid — now Majority Leader — accused the GOP of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership."
The bill went nowhere.
This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.
Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.
That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion.
|
So can you tell me why exactly when the Republicans had control of the house and senate and then the house, senate, and the presidency (not to mention the supreme court) they didn't bother to take action to correct this? Lord knows they rammed through plenty of crap that wasn't good for this country. Oh, I get it, they were too busy pushing through crap that wasn't good for the country to attend to this matter.
When you point the finger you just may have three pointing back at you.
|
IS it a good guess on my part Slartibartfast, that you didn't have to Google-cheat to know this info ? Unlike some people here (myself included  )
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: September 29 2008 at 00:03 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Saddest Thing About This Mess: Congress Had Chance To Stop It
BY TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Could the crisis at Fannie Mae (FNM) - Freddie Mac (FRE) and the subprime meltdown have been avoided?
The answer is yes.
As early as 1992, alarm bells were going off on the threat Fannie and Freddie posed to our financial system and our economy. Intervention at any point could have staved off today's crisis. But Democrats in Congress stood in the way.
As the president recently said, Democrats have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me . . . to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
No, it wasn't President Bush who said that; it was President Clinton, Democrat, speaking just last week.
Interesting, because it was his administration's relentless focus on multiculturalism that led to looser lending standards and regulatory pressure on banks to make mortgage loans to shaky borrowers.
Freddie and Fannie, backed by an "implicit" taxpayer guarantee, bought hundreds of billions of dollars of those subprime loans.
The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials (and some Republicans), worked with Wall Street to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.
As the housing market continued to fall in 2007, subprime loan portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on — though it was 15 years in the making.
Democrats Blocked Reform
Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, WorldCom and other early-2000s scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era, the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.
But Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie. Democrats opposed them, especially Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key banking panels.
History is utterly clear on this.
After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the "systemic risk" posed by Fannie and Freddie, Congress held hearings the next year.
But nothing was done. Why? Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.
"We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.
In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid ever.
Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
The plan included a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, one that could boost capital mandates and look at how they managed risk.
Even after regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by Fannie and Freddie executives to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost bonuses, Democrats killed reform.
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Frank, then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
North Carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."
In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."
McCain Urged Changes
That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."
Sen. Harry Reid — now Majority Leader — accused the GOP of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership."
The bill went nowhere.
This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.
Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.
That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion.
|
So can you tell me why exactly when the Republicans had control of the house and senate and then the house, senate, and the presidency (not to mention the supreme court) they didn't bother to take action to correct this? |
For the same exatc reason the Democrats don't bother to take action today.
And since I have no ideological preferences (unlike you) I can expand on the subject a bit more. If the Republicans were the patriots they claim they are, they would have stood up to this crap and put an end to this orgy long ago. But being the hypocritical pigs they are they could not stop this feast (which action would be immensely unpopular) for the fear of being voted out of office for the next few centuries. So they went along. After all it was good for bisiness, big business that is, who they are big supporters of, the fact they have the guts to admit sometimes. On the other hand the Democrats being the hypoctitical swine they are possess all nice qualities of the Republicans plus they have the temerity to claim they care about the common man.
Slartibartfast wrote:
Lord knows they rammed through plenty of crap that wasn't good for this country. Oh, I get it, they were too busy pushing through crap that wasn't good for the country to attend to this matter. When you point the finger you just may have three pointing back at you. |
Your sarcasm sounds bitter. Not to worry. That article is biased and full of half-truths. For example, most likely Clinton's statement is bullsh*t. He's a great president-in-retrospect, could-have, would-have. And McCain received some contributions from Fannie or Freddie I've heard. You really have to read between the lines. But the roots of the problem are obvious. We will be paying for Clinton's presidency for years to come.
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: September 29 2008 at 02:38 |
|
So the "new" proposal has been released. Sounds like they took the same plan and split it into segments and supposedly added protections to it, for us? Still has to be passed though. And I guess its quite true. We have absolutely no say where our money is going.
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: September 29 2008 at 04:01 |
Secureties, protection, segregated payments?
It's just double-talk, the same lot of bull, unchanged since last week, camouflaged ever so slightly to fool people into thinking there's a bit more substance to it.
I like the way George W. is using the age old weapon of scare tactics to get the public convinced that this is the only way to go. Old, but apparently still very effective. Smooth!
Edited by npjnpj - September 29 2008 at 04:09
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
$700 billion from us to save the banks. Good?