The people have spoken!

[Wikedjuggalo]

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Q4IrVrkU
Good information in their. Some bad but never the less.

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by kwren

Alaska is a great idea! We go up for lunch some days and the people that live there, with maybe an exception from one persons information posted on this form, are fantastic! Great folks!

Keith

How very cryptic.

[shotgunslade]

Very few did the research to REALLY see behind the Democratic and Obama rhetoric in terms of previous voting records and acts that contributed to our current financial crissis.

It is hilarious to listen to people imply knowingly "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" about the "true cause" of the financial crisis, and how it can be traced back to nefaious doings inthe Clinton administration and liberal regulation that made Fannie and Freddie make more mortgages to the n!ggers.

In fact, the collapse of of Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers and the near collapse of AIG were all linked to crazed trading in various unregulated financial instruments called mortage backed securities, along with derivatives such as credit default swaps and even derivatives that captured interest payments on the mortgage backed securities several years in the future. Fannie and Freddie bought individual mortgages from banks and mortgage brokers and packaged them into mortgage backed securities that they sold in the investment markets.

The fact was that there was an enormous appetite for these mortagage backed securities, and not enough mortgages to support them. That is why every other commercial on cable was for Countrywide. When the mortgage brokers ran out of credit-worthy people to refinance, they started issuing sub-prime mortgages to people who didn't have credit credentials. The story of every sub-prime mortgage is different, but they had common themes, mortgage salesmen who often were less than honest with their customers and less than honest on their mortgage applications, homeowners who greedily took the checks they got from refi's based on fraudulent appraisals, and mortgage brokers who turned a blind eye on the risk of these transactions. Fannie and Freddie failed because when the mortgages began to default and the securities based on them started missing dividends, the market for the securities dried up and Fannie and Freddie were left holding a bunch of crap mortgages that they couldn't sell off.

To back up these the securities based on these sub-prime mortgages, securities brokers created something called credit default swaps, which were securities that acted as insurance policies to pay if the basis security defaulted. Unfortunately, as a security, it didn't qualify as an insurance policy, so it wasn't regulated. AIG wrote 85 billion dollars worth of credit default swaps. When the mortgages began to default, and they had to pay, they were in trouble.

So, there is all this weird paper, being traded back and forth, none of it regulated, because these securities were new, and much of it difficult to evaluate without complex computer programs. The estimate of the notional value of all this weird stuff is 62 trillion dollars.

So there was this fabulous house of cards, based on computer generated credit derivatives and securitized (that is an oxymoron if ever there was one) debt, that was almost impossible to evaluate in any normal way. When the market lost confidence, it was all worth nothing, at least immediately, until someone could sort through the wreckage and pull out the good bits.

So, what can we learn about this. Much of this traffic wasn't regulated because the regulators didn't even know what it was, and many of the transactions took place in the form of contracts between individual legal entities which aren't usually regulated.

Fannie and Freddie were doing what they were supposed to do, except that they were not paying attention to the quality of the mortgages that they were securitizing. Some might say this was because of diversity regulations, others might say it was because the market was so hot for the mortgage based securities that they didn't care about the quality of the basis mortgages. They were only a link in the chain, though, and other organizations were also packaging mortgages in mortgage backed securities.

I know this is a long and boring post, but the point is that this is a long and boring and complex subject, and it cannot be made into the basis of an over-simplified right-wing talking point. I have too many friends in this industry who have explained this at great length to succumb to the idiocy of some rant on Youtube that links this to Obama's voting PRESENT on some bit of arcane legislation.

It was about GREED, pure and simple. It wasn't really about de-regulation, it was about non-regulation of weird unanticipated financial instruments. It was about gambling and keeping score, rather than responsible wealth generation. It wasn't about the failure of legislation making mortgages available to disadvantaged people. It was about mortgage brokers willing to write mortgages to dead people on the burial plots they occupied, and then selling them on as legitimate instruments to Fannie and Freddie and then on to Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch with quasi-insurance provided willingly by AIG. When somebody figured out the corpses weren't paying their mortgages, the house of cards collapsed.

[RojoRocket]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RojoRocket
Someone's been watching way too much FOXTV. Appropriate selection of screen name BTW. ROYAL says it all.

Glenn

Originally Posted by RSVX

Less ridicule, more proof backing your words.

No ridicule here. Just thought it appropriate given that the ROYALTY always did know what was best for the little people

I also find it ludicrous that you, Mister Network Admin, would call me on that while sitting by watching your pet attack dog insult fellow members with every post. And what words exactly am I ordered to back with proof? Here's your proof.

Glenn

[Mensaf]

Shotgunslade....you'd better be black.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Omar

Shotgunslade....you'd better be black.

LOL--He's not. He just leans strongly towards socialism.

Lee

[shotgunslade]

I am a dyed in the wool white liberal. I used the N word because I had used it previously when Lee first suggested that the legislative mandates that prohibited banks refusing to write mortages in minority-predominant areas were at the root of the financial collapse.

Seems like most right-wing rants boil down to that. Peel down the argument enough and you will find a racist core. This assertion about the financial meltdown is particularly off-base, because most studies show that the default rate among mortgages covered by the diversity regulations actually is lower than for those that weren't covered.

So, I am using that word for dramatic effect, to show that underneath all that high-faluting free-market blather is straight KKK stuff.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by shotgunslade

I am a dyed in the wool white liberal. I used the N word because I had used it previously when Lee first suggested that the legislative mandates that prohibited banks refusing to write mortages in minority-predominant areas were at the root of the financial collapse.

So, I am using that word for dramatic effect, to show that underneath all that high-faluting free-market blather is straight KKK stuff.

I will have to go back over all my posts, but I do NOT recall ever blaming just the minority loans. I ONLY mean loans to ANYONE that did not qualify by normal standards. I do admit that the Democrat targets for this "easy money" was predominantly minority groups, but that is them.

Since you still seem to blame the Republicans what do you have to say about Rebublican efforts to rein in the FMs in 2001/2003/2005 and the Democrats stalling it. Go back AGAIN and review Barney Franks own statements during hearings on problems with the FMs. You conveniently seem to sidestep that part.

AND I MIGHT ADD--I have NEVER been as racist as the preacher and congregation of Obama's church. NOW THAT IS TRULY RACIST--exceeding even the KKK standards you refer to.

Lee

[shotgunslade]

Ahh socialism. From each according to his means, to each according to his need. Not I, said the little red hen.

I believe in regulated markets because true free market capitalism is based upon the assumption that all participants are honest and truly represent their goods and obligations. Any number of recent and not-so-recent market debacles have demonstrated that, as my father often said, "people are just no damn good."

I believe in preventing those with economic power from subverting the liberties and perogatives of their fellow citizens to enhance their own political and economic benefit.

I believe that every economic enterprise should be responsible for the full extent of its impact on society and the world.

I believe that civil responsiblities are just as important as civil rights.

I do believe in the graduated income tax, and I believe that government funded infrastructure improvements are much more beneficial to society than tax cuts to individuals or corporations whose only use for the increased wealth is "keeping score."

I do believe that an affluent society has a responsiblity toward its less fortunate members, whether that assistance be health care, or food or shelter.

I believe that society has a right to expose its younger citizens to the shared fundmental civic tenets that are the basis of that society.

I believe in the total separation of church and state. I think church property should be taxed just like country clubs and that religious belief should have no more public weight than any other opinion.

I believe that the state has no business in regulating marriages, and that the state should only record and recognize civil unions. What churches do about marriage is their own business.

So, those are a few of the things I believe. I think of those as Jeffersonian, rather than socialist.

[shotgunslade]

Lee:

I believe I originally made that comment when you or someone else suggested that the root cause of the financial crisis was the original regulations of Fannie and Freddie designed to outlaw redlining.

I cannot argue one way or another why Barney Frank resisted further regulation of Fannie and Freddie during the years that you mentioned. It is interesting that this one example of a Democrat resisting the regulation of the "free market" takes on such stature in your argument. The whole opposition fo market regulation is a Reagan thing. There were lots of dergulatory and non-regulatory decisions that contributed to this debacle.

There is a lot of blame to go around in the financial meltdown. It is very complicated, and any number of legislative, executive, and judicial actions can be pointed at as contributary.

But, the fact of the matter is that the public has lost confidence in unbridled free-markets. It sees too many CEO's of Lehmans Bros, who destroy the lifetime wealth of common people and then walk away with bags of money. People cannot bring themselves to give these guys a tax cut.

So, in the future, markets will be more regulated, and rich people will be taxed more to pay for fixing bridges, and funding renewable energy research, and other such activities that contribute to the health of our country. If that is socialism, bring it on.

[lhopp77]

I think if you check there were some significant deregulation provisions passed during the the Clinton administration, so don't be so hasty as to totally blame republicans for that.

Correcting past mistakes on not reining in the FMs was a very very big mistake that falls squarely in the laps of the democrats.

Lee

[Stilor]

Originally Posted by shotgunslade

Ahh socialism. From each according to his means, to each according to his need. Not I, said the little red hen.

I believe in regulated markets because true free market capitalism is based upon the assumption that all participants are honest and truly represent their goods and obligations. Any number of recent and not-so-recent market debacles have demonstrated that, as my father often said, "people are just no damn good."

I believe in preventing those with economic power from subverting the liberties and perogatives of their fellow citizens to enhance their own political and economic benefit.

I believe that every economic enterprise should be responsible for the full extent of its impact on society and the world.

I believe that civil responsiblities are just as important as civil rights.

I do believe in the graduated income tax, and I believe that government funded infrastructure improvements are much more beneficial to society than tax cuts to individuals or corporations whose only use for the increased wealth is "keeping score."

I do believe that an affluent society has a responsiblity toward its less fortunate members, whether that assistance be health care, or food or shelter.

I believe that society has a right to expose its younger citizens to the shared fundmental civic tenets that are the basis of that society.

I believe in the total separation of church and state. I think church property should be taxed just like country clubs and that religious belief should have no more public weight than any other opinion.

I believe that the state has no business in regulating marriages, and that the state should only record and recognize civil unions. What churches do about marriage is their own business.

So, those are a few of the things I believe. I think of those as Jeffersonian, rather than socialist.

I couldn't have said better. One thing I'd comment on is the "responsibility for less fortunate": I don't think it's just a responsibility (i.e. expense); I would consider it more of investment. The very people you provide with food/healthcare/education today are going to be taxpayers tomorrow - paying back for the next generation. Sorta' bootstrapping

However, do you think Democrats (or president-elect, specifically) are going to implement the beliefs you cited? I am not sure about it... not that I think Republicans were going to implement it either.

[gstape]

I believe in regulated markets because true free market capitalism is based upon the assumption that all participants are honest and truly represent their goods and obligations. Any number of recent and not-so-recent market debacles have demonstrated that, as my father often said, "people are just no damn good."

I believe in regulated markets too. But why do we assume that the regulator needs to be the government? Government regulation has obviously not worked right? Why can't we allow the markets to regulate themselves? Don't you think it is in the best interest of the NYSE (for example) to protect the interests of investors (buyers and sellers) that buy stock in their exchange by keeping it fair and honest? (I am not an expert here by any means, just asking a few questions as devils advocate... coming from a small government bias of course )

Capitalism is most definatly not based on the assumption that all participants are honest... not sure where you got that from???

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by gstape

Capitalism is most definatly not based on the assumption that all participants are honest... not sure where you got that from???

So are you saying it can't work without some corruption? Something I've learned is it's the corrupt ones who want everyone else to be honest (huge strategical advantages), as well as the honest themselves, so yes I think honesty plays a major role in the influences of all parties.

[newsvx]

Originally Posted by gstape

I believe in regulated markets too. But why do we assume that the regulator needs to be the government? Government regulation has obviously not worked right? Why can't we allow the markets to regulate themselves? Don't you think it is in the best interest of the NYSE (for example) to protect the interests of investors (buyers and sellers) that buy stock in their exchange by keeping it fair and honest? (I am not an expert here by any means, just asking a few questions as devils advocate... coming from a small government bias of course )

Capitalism is most definatly not based on the assumption that all participants are honest... not sure where you got that from???

Shotgun has articulated the situation quite well. And yes, as he stated, there is plenty of blame to go around - Dems and Republicans alike. However, we have had Republicans in charge for the last eight years and no finetuning of the system was done. Yep, Ole Frank was a factor, but in the first six year of the Bush rein, Bush got everything he wanted from Congress, deregulating as he wen- have you checked the interest rates on credit cards lately and understand that just because someone is late on a utility bill, his credit card rate can significantly increase - something is wrong with that picture.
To the point, those at the top of the financial food chain have not even for a moment considered the ones at the bottom. Don't care! Greed? Yep. The sysem CAN NOT regulate itself. We have seen that proven. The NYSE is clearly NOT the one to regulate the system. We really have not had much "government" regulation lately. The push has been for the system to regulate itself. THAT clearly has not worked, certainly not to the benefit of the consumer. Have you noticed what happened when cable TV and the telephones were deregulated? Competition, they said, was supposed to lower cost to the consumer. Didn't happen. Big companies bought up the smaller ones and then there was NO competition and they raised rates. Funny how that "deregulation" works, isn't it. We had an old saying in the Army. Only what the commander checks, gets done properly....... We have had the foxes guarding the hen house for much too long. Check out too the great divide between the poor and the very rich. We, the USA, are fast approaching the kind of situation I have seen in third world nations in over 20 years in the Army. There is the VERY rich and the VERY poor - no middle class to speak of at all. And the biggest point here is, if the "little people" don't have a decent salary, who will buy the goods of the rich guy's company?

Harry