Explain this screw up Dem's!!!
Comments
-
Pj_Gurl wrote:Ann Coulter.... hahahahaha omg. seriously
really, i shouldn't be so surprised though, i mean today we've had...
PETA wanting us to give cows milk the flick and have boobie milk in ice cream instead :rolleyes:
then there's ''i've seen dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them'' Palin with her little chat about Russia(people actually think this woman is a good choice for VP?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/25/palin-talks-russia-with-k_n_129318.html
an unbelievable encounter with some psycho....
ann coulter though... like....wow. you can say all you like that it doesn't change the facts, but who in their right mind would even give this evil ugly bitch the time of the day.
Not to mention the Daily KOS article a while back that her daughter actually had her baby.0 -
I am finding this debate to be quite comical. To give you a background I am neck deep in this debacle and it is hysterical once the bailout plan had to be encountered (and trust me it NEEDS to be encountered) the politicization of the causes of the problems. Didn't hear about any of these issues at all prior to last week. Even when Fannie and Freddie were bailed out three weeks ago.
The op-ed piece from a professor from Columbia in the Wall Street Journal started this argument of the allowing of Freddie and Fannie to get involved in buying of sub-prime mortgages caused all of this! Then the talking heads who could not possibly understand all the inticacies of Credit Default Swaps, Changes in Accounting and tax Policies, the unregulated and economically fueled rating agency failure, the change in Fed policy (and world policy, see Basel II bank regulations, major push from REPUBLICANS and Greenspan) in regards to capital by investment and commercial banks that allowed them to increase their leverage from 10-15x to over 35X LEVERAGE, the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, just keep repeating the same information out to the world.
No doubt that the freeing of money to sub prime lenders who then paid out the freer cash to those who should have not qualified for mortgages has a part. A SMALL PART.
Here's my call:
Capitalism and all the good that comes with it, has a nasty down side. Once someone sees an in for taking profit, which could be a good plan, everyone wants to have a piece of it. Companies come out of the woodwork who are willing to do everything to make a buck and will push the envelope. Banks found themselves unregulated in the CDS market making and allowed them to put percieved hedges in place which they believed took out the risk. The rating agencies signed off on all this and made a hyper market where eveyone was bringing profits down which led everyone to look for more risky positions to increase volume to overcome lowering profits. They took more risks on higher volume and did not take into account counter-party risk of those they were laying off their risks through hedges. Hedges were not regulated by anyone and companies that should have not been in these business (ie AIG) were taking on massive risk without having enough capital to overcome them if there was an issue.
So now what happens, housing prices start going down (that was bound to happen at sometime folks), people were over-levered (and not just poor people, LOTS of people, it was not just the sub-prime market that is falling, it is the prime market and the floating rate Alt-A market) and started walking away from the residences but more importantly their INVESTMENTS) and stopped paying their loans. Those loans cause defaults and failures to pay in the securities (don't get me started on CDO's which over-levered the markets to massive extremes, I will happily write a paper of that failure again the RA).
Losses occur and banks are seeing their values dissipate. They are not completely honest about what was on their balance sheets (big failure of banks and accounting firms). Now people start looking to get payment from the Insurance companies who owe them on the hedges (Big failure of banks and insurers on understanding the risks). They are levered so much that they don't have enough in capital to cover their losses.
AND THE HOUSE OF CARD FALLS --
This is not a question of democrat and republican (All sides are to blame). This is a question of risk and understanding it and regulating how far companies can go until it becomes a CONCERN to all of us.
For capitalism to work, there can not be tons of regulation, but there can not be none (anarchy)
Will be happy to have the bullets shot at me now!
0 -
Black Diamond wrote:I am finding this debate to be quite comical. To give you a background I am neck deep in this debacle and it is hysterical once the bailout plan had to be encountered (and trust me it NEEDS to be encountered) the politicization of the causes of the problems. Didn't hear about any of these issues at all prior to last week. Even when Fannie and Freddie were bailed out three weeks ago.
The op-ed piece from a professor from Columbia in the Wall Street Journal started this argument of the allowing of Freddie and Fannie to get involved in buying of sub-prime mortgages caused all of this! Then the talking heads who could not possibly understand all the inticacies of Credit Default Swaps, Changes in Accounting and tax Policies, the unregulated and economically fueled rating agency failure, the change in Fed policy (and world policy, see Basel II bank regulations, major push from REPUBLICANS and Greenspan) in regards to capital by investment and commercial banks that allowed them to increase their leverage from 10-15x to over 35X LEVERAGE, the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, just keep repeating the same information out to the world.
No doubt that the freeing of money to sub prime lenders who then paid out the freer cash to those who should have not qualified for mortgages has a part. A SMALL PART.
Here's my call:
Capitalism and all the good that comes with it, has a nasty down side. Once someone sees an in for taking profit, which could be a good plan, everyone wants to have a piece of it. Companies come out of the woodwork who are willing to do everything to make a buck and will push the envelope. Banks found themselves unregulated in the CDS market making and allowed them to put percieved hedges in place which they believed took out the risk. The rating agencies signed off on all this and made a hyper market where eveyone was bringing profits down which led everyone to look for more risky positions to increase volume to overcome lowering profits. They took more risks on higher volume and did not take into account counter-party risk of those they were laying off their risks through hedges. Hedges were not regulated by anyone and companies that should have not been in these business (ie AIG) were taking on massive risk without having enough capital to overcome them if there was an issue.
So now what happens, housing prices start going down (that was bound to happen at sometime folks), people were over-levered (and not just poor people, LOTS of people, it was not just the sub-prime market that is falling, it is the prime market and the floating rate Alt-A market) and started walking away from the residences but more importantly their INVESTMENTS) and stopped paying their loans. Those loans cause defaults and failures to pay in the securities (don't get me started on CDO's which over-levered the markets to massive extremes, I will happily write a paper of that failure again the RA).
Losses occur and banks are seeing their values dissipate. They are not completely honest about what was on their balance sheets (big failure of banks and accounting firms). Now people start looking to get payment from the Insurance companies who owe them on the hedges (Big failure of banks and insurers on understanding the risks). They are levered so much that they don't have enough in capital to cover their losses.
AND THE HOUSE OF CARD FALLS --
This is not a question of democrat and republican (All sides are to blame). This is a question of risk and understanding it and regulating how far companies can go until it becomes a CONCERN to all of us.
For capitalism to work, there can not be tons of regulation, but there can not be none (anarchy)
Will be happy to have the bullets shot at me now!
Well said."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0 -
Black Diamond wrote:For capitalism to work, there can not be tons of regulation, but there can not be none (anarchy)
does capitalism account for sustainability? ... i mean if i have a model to cut all the trees in a state that creates x jobs and puts x dollars into the economy - it's considered great ... but what about the impacts of losing all those trees? ... what about the impact that there are no more trees left?
i don't think capitalism accounts for that0 -
Never shoot the messenger, especially when he makes sense.Black Diamond wrote:I am finding this debate to be quite comical. To give you a background I am neck deep in this debacle and it is hysterical once the bailout plan had to be encountered (and trust me it NEEDS to be encountered) the politicization of the causes of the problems. Didn't hear about any of these issues at all prior to last week. Even when Fannie and Freddie were bailed out three weeks ago.
The op-ed piece from a professor from Columbia in the Wall Street Journal started this argument of the allowing of Freddie and Fannie to get involved in buying of sub-prime mortgages caused all of this! Then the talking heads who could not possibly understand all the inticacies of Credit Default Swaps, Changes in Accounting and tax Policies, the unregulated and economically fueled rating agency failure, the change in Fed policy (and world policy, see Basel II bank regulations, major push from REPUBLICANS and Greenspan) in regards to capital by investment and commercial banks that allowed them to increase their leverage from 10-15x to over 35X LEVERAGE, the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, just keep repeating the same information out to the world.
No doubt that the freeing of money to sub prime lenders who then paid out the freer cash to those who should have not qualified for mortgages has a part. A SMALL PART.
Here's my call:
Capitalism and all the good that comes with it, has a nasty down side. Once someone sees an in for taking profit, which could be a good plan, everyone wants to have a piece of it. Companies come out of the woodwork who are willing to do everything to make a buck and will push the envelope. Banks found themselves unregulated in the CDS market making and allowed them to put percieved hedges in place which they believed took out the risk. The rating agencies signed off on all this and made a hyper market where eveyone was bringing profits down which led everyone to look for more risky positions to increase volume to overcome lowering profits. They took more risks on higher volume and did not take into account counter-party risk of those they were laying off their risks through hedges. Hedges were not regulated by anyone and companies that should have not been in these business (ie AIG) were taking on massive risk without having enough capital to overcome them if there was an issue.
So now what happens, housing prices start going down (that was bound to happen at sometime folks), people were over-levered (and not just poor people, LOTS of people, it was not just the sub-prime market that is falling, it is the prime market and the floating rate Alt-A market) and started walking away from the residences but more importantly their INVESTMENTS) and stopped paying their loans. Those loans cause defaults and failures to pay in the securities (don't get me started on CDO's which over-levered the markets to massive extremes, I will happily write a paper of that failure again the RA).
Losses occur and banks are seeing their values dissipate. They are not completely honest about what was on their balance sheets (big failure of banks and accounting firms). Now people start looking to get payment from the Insurance companies who owe them on the hedges (Big failure of banks and insurers on understanding the risks). They are levered so much that they don't have enough in capital to cover their losses.
AND THE HOUSE OF CARD FALLS --
This is not a question of democrat and republican (All sides are to blame). This is a question of risk and understanding it and regulating how far companies can go until it becomes a CONCERN to all of us.
For capitalism to work, there can not be tons of regulation, but there can not be none (anarchy)
Will be happy to have the bullets shot at me now!
Nice post amigo. Well said.0 -
I actually heard some talking head last night make the claim that Fannie and Freddie were created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt .. a Democrat ... indeed, making the claim, this is the DEMOCRAT'S fault, FDR's fault ...
you spin me right round baby ...."You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez0 -
polaris wrote:does capitalism account for sustainability? ... i mean if i have a model to cut all the trees in a state that creates x jobs and puts x dollars into the economy - it's considered great ... but what about the impacts of losing all those trees? ... what about the impact that there are no more trees left?
i don't think capitalism accounts for that
Agreed! That is the problem. There are always going to be cycles. Can't help it. Public sentiment pushes things one way or the other. With the advent of CNBC, the internet, things are going to be quicker and more volatile.
The issue (in my opinion) is the level of risk we are allowed to take. For capitalism to work there need to be risk takers. Both on the creation side (ie Steve Jobs) and on the banking and financial side (Warren Spector). However both sides of this equation have to take into account the level of risks they are willing to take, giving up upside to avoid massive downside.
The basic common risk aversion should be the MORAL and SOCIAL hazard of the ramification of private risk taking to the public good. This is why some form of regulation is needed, some form of market making is needed.
These things are needed to avoid cutting down all the trees without a proper harvest plan. Just cutting them all down is a social and biological moral hazard as much as a financial moral hazard of not looking to the future.
This always comes back to the same quote. "Those who do not look to their past are doomed to repeat it".
This is not different in cause than the early 90's debacle in the Savings and Loan Scandle. This is not different than the bank failures in Scandanavia.
What is different is the scale. And that was caused by the Trillions of leverage that banks were allowed to have on thier balance sheet due to change in banking and funding laws.0 -
-
Funny things about this post:
how people continue to look to social programs like welfare which pales in $ comparison to the corporate welfare that our gov't blindy gives to the real greedy pig owning companies.
how to generalize that Dems (or Repubs for the matter) did this... did the Dems tell me I could buy a house for $800k knowing I really can only afford say $300K?
how 95% of us will find a reason to fight argue and bicker about the silliest things when really 95% of us are on the same side, what are we fighting over, unless you are in the priviledged class (meaning too much money power and influence) I cant see where a post like this come from, unless of course you are flat out ignorant to what is going on.
no wonder we are powerless pathetic creatures here in the US.0 -
It's funny, she's talking about CRA mortgages but she won't name them. Probably because if she named them - instead of making cheap, vague references - people would Google and learn that that little theory of hers has already been lobbed up by the Republicans and pretty thoroughly debunked.
Here's what I know off the top of my head: CRA loans have been around since the 70's, the crisis started a few years ago. CRA is not for less qualified - it was instituted after statistics showed that equally qualified minorities were not being offered loans at the same rate as their white counterparts. CRA is only applicable to some banks - not all - and isn't applicable at all to any mortgage lenders. Which means that only about 25% of lending institutions fall under CRA. CRA specifically prohibits predatory practices.
I think it's 75-80% of subprime loans came from banks and/or lenders with no CRA exposure. So, if Republicans want to claim that CRA "forced" banks to make bad loans, how did they account for all those bad loans being made by institutions which don't even fall under CRA?
Also, Bush substantially weakened CRA back in 2004 and subprime loans ballooned AFTER he weakened it.
This mess is due to the Bush administration's active protection of subprime and predatory lenders:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.htmlmichelle
power to the peaceful0 -
Also, where is Bear Stearns crying that they were forced to make these loans? Where are ANY bankers crying that? The only place you seem to find that accusation is in right-wing blogs.
Don't you think they'd have been screaming at the top of their lungs that none of this is really their fault if this was the case?michelle
power to the peaceful0 -
Black Diamond wrote:I am finding this debate to be quite comical. To give you a background I am neck deep in this debacle and it is hysterical once the bailout plan had to be encountered (and trust me it NEEDS to be encountered) the politicization of the causes of the problems. Didn't hear about any of these issues at all prior to last week. Even when Fannie and Freddie were bailed out three weeks ago.
The op-ed piece from a professor from Columbia in the Wall Street Journal started this argument of the allowing of Freddie and Fannie to get involved in buying of sub-prime mortgages caused all of this! Then the talking heads who could not possibly understand all the inticacies of Credit Default Swaps, Changes in Accounting and tax Policies, the unregulated and economically fueled rating agency failure, the change in Fed policy (and world policy, see Basel II bank regulations, major push from REPUBLICANS and Greenspan) in regards to capital by investment and commercial banks that allowed them to increase their leverage from 10-15x to over 35X LEVERAGE, the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, just keep repeating the same information out to the world.
No doubt that the freeing of money to sub prime lenders who then paid out the freer cash to those who should have not qualified for mortgages has a part. A SMALL PART.
Here's my call:
Capitalism and all the good that comes with it, has a nasty down side. Once someone sees an in for taking profit, which could be a good plan, everyone wants to have a piece of it. Companies come out of the woodwork who are willing to do everything to make a buck and will push the envelope. Banks found themselves unregulated in the CDS market making and allowed them to put percieved hedges in place which they believed took out the risk. The rating agencies signed off on all this and made a hyper market where eveyone was bringing profits down which led everyone to look for more risky positions to increase volume to overcome lowering profits. They took more risks on higher volume and did not take into account counter-party risk of those they were laying off their risks through hedges. Hedges were not regulated by anyone and companies that should have not been in these business (ie AIG) were taking on massive risk without having enough capital to overcome them if there was an issue.
So now what happens, housing prices start going down (that was bound to happen at sometime folks), people were over-levered (and not just poor people, LOTS of people, it was not just the sub-prime market that is falling, it is the prime market and the floating rate Alt-A market) and started walking away from the residences but more importantly their INVESTMENTS) and stopped paying their loans. Those loans cause defaults and failures to pay in the securities (don't get me started on CDO's which over-levered the markets to massive extremes, I will happily write a paper of that failure again the RA).
Losses occur and banks are seeing their values dissipate. They are not completely honest about what was on their balance sheets (big failure of banks and accounting firms). Now people start looking to get payment from the Insurance companies who owe them on the hedges (Big failure of banks and insurers on understanding the risks). They are levered so much that they don't have enough in capital to cover their losses.
AND THE HOUSE OF CARD FALLS --
This is not a question of democrat and republican (All sides are to blame). This is a question of risk and understanding it and regulating how far companies can go until it becomes a CONCERN to all of us.
For capitalism to work, there can not be tons of regulation, but there can not be none (anarchy)
Will be happy to have the bullets shot at me now!
No bullets! : ) ... Thanks for being a voice of reason!
Oh Ms. Ann Coutler ... the woman would spin and twist just about anything, even her own birthday! : ) That is what she does. Ya can't take her at truth value. She provides interesting food for thought ... though not often is it very wise or truthful food for thought."i'm a dedicated insomniac" ~ ev nyc beacon 6/220 -
One more link for you. CRA loans defaulted LESS than regular subprime...
The Community Reinvestment Act: A Welcome Anomaly in the Foreclosure Crisis
Indications that the CRA Deterred Irresponsible Lending
in the 15 Most Populous U.S. Metropolitan Areas:
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdfmichelle
power to the peaceful0 -
Ann Coulter. Now there is one unbiased source of information. No way she's going to slant anything.
Try as they might to deflect, obfuscate, and spin, all of the GOP mouthpieces, apologists, and wonks in the world cannot erase one indisputable fact:
This situation worsened and came to a head on George W. Bush's watch. He is the President and chief executive of the United States, but he's a terrible, clueless fucking leader and has been since day one, hour one of his first term.
Ann, it's YOUR president who's now come forward with hat in hand. Not Bill Clinton. Not Al Gore. Not John Kerry.
Would this have happened had Al Gore become President? Don't know. Can't know. What I know is what we've got, and it's a plateful of shit, and it's not going to change unless we change it.
I love the culture of responsibility in America. Did you fuck up? Have you been asleep at the switch? Just blame the other guy. Yes, I'm aware that Democrats do it too.0 -
We don't all need to be greedy...this is extremely bipartisan. There are plenty of monumental screwups to go around for both parties, administrations, and ideologies on this issue.0
-
Pats54 wrote:Couldn't agree more. Affirmitive action lending practices. The Dems wanted no regulation for Freddie and Fannie. However, subprime is not responsible for all of this mess. Look at the top who Freddie and Fannie gave money to Dodd & Obama. I am hearing crickets on this one as far as the Dem's are concerned. However, when oil prices run up all you hear is the W is from Texas and he is taking care of his rich friends. The whole Enron mess was blamed on Republicans. Yet no is blaming the Dems for this mess. Hey I don't like having to pay a monthly mortgage maybe I should say fuck it and someone can bail me out.
It seems that you are forgetting that 26 of McCain's campaign heads are lobbyists. And that Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, received over 2 million dollars in five years to be president of an advocacy group for Freddie Mac. And he's still his campaign manager. Hmmmm...... forget that did ya??!!!
How about the fact that Davis' firm STILL received $15,000 per month up to Aug. 2008 for doing nothing!!!! I hear what you are saying that some Dems are at fault, but it was a Repubilican that wrote the bill, Phil Graham. You remember him, the one that called Americans, " a naton of whinners". That Phil."Love ain't love until you give it up." - Amongst The Waves0 -
...acoustic guy wrote:The Democrats push to give mortgages to minorities who can not afford them. They allowed them to use welfare payments as income. HA! And the minute the bubble bursts they will be in big trouble...and what happened?
Go ahead and try to blame this one on the existing office.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20080924/cm_ucac/theygaveyourmortgagetoalessqualifiedminority;_ylt=ArImCphVJaO_OXf9bZD_hx4DW7oF
Then... WHY didn't the Republican Controlled Senate, House of Representatives and White House DO anything to correct this between 2000 and 2006? That is Six years of letting it continue... and grow. Shouldn't THAT had been a part of the 'Contract With America'?
...
And... in your book... this offsets the fiasco that is the trillion dollar war in Iraq... the failure of FEMA in response of Hurricane Katrina... The politicalization of the Justice Department... the attempt to seat Harriet Meirs in the Supreme Court... warrantless wiretaps... Soviet-style Gulags and KGB tactics... feeding the Islamic state of Pakistan with weapons, tax-dollars and military intelligence?
That's like you cheering like crazy when your team finally kicks a field goal to get on the board with 1:04 left in a 76-3 game.
Yeah... "YAY! TEAM!!!"Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!0 -
Cosmo wrote:...
Then... WHY didn't the Republican Controlled Senate, House of Representatives and White House DO anything to correct this between 2000 and 2006? That is Six years of letting it continue... and grow. Shouldn't THAT had been a part of the 'Contract With America'?
...
And... in your book... this offsets the fiasco that is the trillion dollar war in Iraq... the failure of FEMA in response of Hurricane Katrina... The politicalization of the Justice Department... the attempt to seat Harriet Meirs in the Supreme Court... warrantless wiretaps... Soviet-style Gulags and KGB tactics... feeding the Islamic state of Pakistan with weapons, tax-dollars and military intelligence?
That's like you cheering like crazy when your team finally kicks a field goal to get on the board with 1:04 left in a 76-3 game.
Yeah... "YAY! TEAM!!!"
Thank you, Cosmo. That was a great way to put this. I wish there were more people like you in Texas here with me. I will keep up the fight here. We will see a change on Nov. 4th.... hopefully for the better."Love ain't love until you give it up." - Amongst The Waves0 -
acoustic guy wrote:...facts are facts.
It seems I only hear (or read) Republicans using this phrase, often after those "facts" have been twisted to support their position.0 -
acoustic guy wrote:but facts are facts.
assuming the new definition of "facts" is now "completely made up stuff" then yes.
follow my logic....
First of all, the column is entitled "opinion"
second, I don't see any source notes next to her reporting, so how are these facts?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help