PDA

View Full Version : Not a single word on the "meltdown" of the economy



jay howard
09-24-2008, 03:57 PM
Guess I shouldn't be surprised by the fact that no one here wants to talk about the radical subsidization of the richest firms on Wallstreet.

The biggest, most influential story of the last 6 years, and barely a whisper of it on the "breaking news" section here.

It's the last cash grab before the administration of reckless thieves gets chased out. And while you and I are getting slapped with what some have called a 55% income tax, I'm curious how anyone can possibly see this bailout as anything less than pure communism. Not just communism, but theft from everyone on your street by the richest bags of crap to ever walk this planet. Getting richer. From our hard work.

I understand when people say they don't want to pay for some bum who doesn't want to work or doesn't want to get a better job or stop having kids. Now, what doesn't seem to compute is that there is not righteous outcry that many times the amount of money EVER spent on welfare is moving towards the pockets of fat thieves--who have no individual monetary "crisis" to speak of. We are now working for them. Without our consent. Or a real crisis. Sure, people will lose their houses. This bailout won't stop that. I don't really care if they do. It's like the old adage: "if you owe the bank $100 dollars, that's your problem. If you own the bank $1,000,000, that's the bank's problem."

It's not the individual home owners that anyone (myself included) appears to give a damn about.

Why shouldn't the "invisible hand of the market" let these asshole banks fail for making bad decisions? That's what happens when someone makes bad business decisions outside of Wallstreet. They go out of business. Or they go sell someone else on their business plan for a new infusion of cash. They do NOT get free fed money "with no oversight" from any court or agency.

These banks and financial institutions which are stacked with PhD's knew very well that they were packaging worthless financial instruments and attaching AAA ratings on them, reselling them, and making big money on crap paper. And since they made very bad business decisions, we should be obligated to pay for them. Right? They should be rewarded. With our hard earned money. Right?

I want to personally thank every dipshit here and elsewhere who can't seem to pull your head out of your ass long enough to tell that you are letting us all get fleeced while simultaneously crying about getting taxed by Obama's plan: (which, incidentally, will lower your taxes unless you make more than $250K/yr).

This administration has spent more (public) money than any government in history. But still, you should be worried about gay marriage. And Obama's "socialist" tendencies. That's the real issue.


.

patriot45
09-24-2008, 04:07 PM
Nice rant. You should read around the site before you spout off like a little lib. Where do you see that we agree with the bail out?

jay howard
09-24-2008, 04:12 PM
Nice rant. You should read around the site before you spout off like a little lib. Where do you see that we agree with the bail out?


So you agree that this is simply state-backed theft? That the administration is staffed with socialists?


.

lacarnut
09-24-2008, 04:19 PM
So you agree that this is simply state-backed theft? That the administration is staffed with socialists?


.

I agree that you are a dumb ass because there are several topics that have been posted that address your concern. Stupid must really hurt. Speaking of dipshits, you can take yours over to the Dump if you do not like it here, asshole.

asdf2231
09-24-2008, 04:19 PM
Geez. :rolleyes:

Between this Gonard and eyelids the quality of Lib Trolls has REALLY gone downhill. :(

Either it's a frothy little Liberal off the resvervation for a rant (which is cool because it keeps him from flipping out in public and yelling at street signs) or it's one of the Libertarian frothy mocha types.

At any rate the troll quality used to be better here.

I never thought I would say this but I miss Buzz Click sometimes.

asdf2231
09-24-2008, 04:21 PM
OK, I've defended this war enough. F*ck the Iraqis.
Views: 1,308 Posted By jay howard
For the record, I supported Ron Paul for...

For the record, I supported Ron Paul for president. Everyone else on the ballot is either an idiot, a tool or just a good salesman.

So, the war is both good and bad? And it's both the Bush...

To Quote Emily Letella "Ohhh... Never Mind!"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/AndreaOK/slimjim.jpg

patriot45
09-24-2008, 04:22 PM
So you agree that this is simply state-backed theft? That the administration is staffed with socialists?


.

You answered my question about where you have read that we agree with the bail out with 2 questions.
That is a Libtard tactic.

To answer you, yes to the first and no to the second.

If the messiah wins in Nov. I will change my second answer to yes.

AlmostThere
09-24-2008, 07:42 PM
Someone help me out here. Do I take it that the general consensus is that this bail-out is unnecessary?

JB
09-24-2008, 08:05 PM
Damn CW. This dude does not read your threads.

Cold Warrior
09-24-2008, 08:29 PM
Damn CW. This dude does not read your threads.

I know, I know. There is NO PROBLEM, do you hear. Don't worry, be happy. All of this nonsense about economic problems is just an invention of the liberal media in a plot to elect Obama. After all, the economy in the swamplands is booming, with housing prices going through the roof. Anyone who says differently is a "Doom and Gloomer."

But, supposing, and this is just a supposition for argument's sake, there was a problem, it's definitely the fault of:

1. Jimmy Carter, whose last day in office was over 28 years ago
2. The Democratic Congress of the last two years
3. The immoral William Jefferson Clinton

After all, how could any blame fall on the Idiot Child who's been in office for almost 8 years, or the Republican Congress who was in power from 1994-2006 (excepting, of course, the Jeffords era). Anyone who would even think that part, if not the majority of the blame lies there, is a "whiner," an "out of the closet Democrat," or, more likely, a Commie.

JB
09-24-2008, 08:31 PM
I know, I know. <snip>LMAO.

I'm going to kill you one day dude.

Shannon
09-24-2008, 08:44 PM
I know, I know. There is NO PROBLEM, do you hear. Don't worry, be happy. All of this nonsense about economic problems is just an invention of the liberal media in a plot to elect Obama. After all, the economy in the swamplands is booming, with housing prices going through the roof. Anyone who says differently is a "Doom and Gloomer."

But, supposing, and this is just a supposition for argument's sake, there was a problem, it's definitely the fault of:

1. Jimmy Carter, whose last day in office was over 28 years ago
2. The Democratic Congress of the last two years
3. The immoral William Jefferson Clinton

After all, how could any blame fall on the Idiot Child who's been in office for almost 8 years, or the Republican Congress who was in power from 1994-2006 (excepting, of course, the Jeffords era). Anyone who would even think that part, if not the majority of the blame lies there, is a "whiner," an "out of the closet Democrat," or, more likely, a Commie.

I've decided to blame you for everything from now on.

Cold Warrior
09-24-2008, 08:46 PM
I've decided to blame you for everything from now on.

That's ok. Unlike the Idiot Child, I can handle both the blame and the credit. :D

AlmostThere
09-24-2008, 08:56 PM
I think we can blame the Democrats who blocked regulation from being imposed on Fannie and Freddie even when warning bells were going off. I think it was 2003 when Greenspan predicted exactly what is happening right now but was ignored because certain people were hip deep with Fannie and Freddie.
Actually 2005 that Greenspan told us what to expect.

Cold Warrior
09-24-2008, 09:10 PM
I think we can blame the Democrats who blocked regulation from being imposed on Fannie and Freddie even when warning bells were going off. I think it was 2003 when Greenspan predicted exactly what is happening right now but was ignored because certain people were hip deep with Fannie and Freddie.

Sorry, please tell me what bills designed to curb these abuses came out of committee (a requirement of only a majority vote) during this time that the Republicans were the majorities on ALL committees?

John
09-24-2008, 09:24 PM
Someone help me out here. Do I take it that the general consensus is that this bail-out is unnecessary?

That's a hard question to answer. Personally, I see it as the government giving away $700bn, in a rush, without proper planning, without even knowing if it will actually bail out the credit markets. As an American, I will be faced with about $4,666 ( $700bn/150 million taxpayers) in debt, not to mention my losses due to the inflation $700bn in new money is going to bring. Oh yeah, this money will be borrowed from the Federal reserve, so their will be interest owed on the debt as well as far as I know.

As it stands now, Congress might allow the sum of $700bn taxpayer dollars to be handed over to the banks, divided up based on the sole judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Is it necessary? Will it work? Will the economy recover at the expense of my tax dollars? I have no idea and neither do they. And that is exactly why it sounds like a very, very bad idea.

OwlMBA
09-24-2008, 09:53 PM
I, for one, am very upset at the meltdown of the mortgage industry thanks to Bill Clinton.

Yes, if you want to know why we are in this mess, look at the Clinton Administration. They are the ones that created legislation and policies forcing Fannie May and Freddie Mac to give loans to poor minorities with bad credit who had no business getting a loan.

It was a liberal policy to create a government program to guarantee loans. No Conservative would ever support the government guaranteeing mortgages. How ironic that liberals are decrying the results of the policies that they create. Government-subsidized loans to non credit-worth people is as liberal of an idea as you can get, and look where it got us.

Lager
09-24-2008, 09:59 PM
If you think this is bad, just wait a few more years til the millions of boomers are all retiring, and the massive government transfer of wealth begins to cover their pensions and medical care. Without robust economic growth to generate increasing revenue, that's going to hit just as hard as this boot in the ass.

lacarnut
09-24-2008, 11:45 PM
I think we can blame the Democrats who blocked regulation from being imposed on Fannie and Freddie even when warning bells were going off. I think it was 2003 when Greenspan predicted exactly what is happening right now but was ignored because certain people were hip deep with Fannie and Freddie.

Volker was against deregulation; Greenspan was for deregulation. Never once did I hear Greenspan give any indication that a melt down of the housing crisis was coming when he testified before Congress. What he did do was try to undercut Ben B. every chance he got when he left in 2006. The first month he was out of office, he dropped a bombshell about a 50-50 chance of a recession in Japan. Republicans and Democrats are responsible for this mess. Bush's cheer-leading that home ownership is more desirable than renting is bull shit. Not if you can not afford the payments, the upkeep and the taxes.

GrumpyOldLady
09-26-2008, 12:46 PM
http://gi83.photobucket.com/groups/j306/8GERJ9XK0U/obama-and-media.jpg

jay howard
09-27-2008, 02:46 AM
You answered my question about where you have read that we agree with the bail out with 2 questions.
That is a Libtard tactic.

To answer you, yes to the first and no to the second.

If the messiah wins in Nov. I will change my second answer to yes.


If this corporate welfare bailout doesn't count as socialism, why does only welfare to poor people count as socialism?


.

jay howard
09-27-2008, 04:14 AM
I think we can blame the Democrats who blocked regulation from being imposed on Fannie and Freddie even when warning bells were going off. I think it was 2003 when Greenspan predicted exactly what is happening right now but was ignored because certain people were hip deep with Fannie and Freddie.

2003. Who had a majority in the House? Who had a majority in the Senate? Who was president?

Remind me again.

.

Cold Warrior
09-27-2008, 07:23 AM
2003. Who had a majority in the House? Who had a majority in the Senate? Who was president?

Remind me again.

.

Don't bring up inconvenient truths. McCain and the Idiot Child both made speeches and a R controlled committee considered a bill, but didn't push it out of committee. Isn't that enough for you!!! :D

asdf2231
09-27-2008, 03:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&eurl=http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=14404.msg173603;boardseen

AlmostThere
09-27-2008, 05:38 PM
Volker was against deregulation; Greenspan was for deregulation. Never once did I hear Greenspan give any indication that a melt down of the housing crisis was coming when he testified before Congress. What he did do was try to undercut Ben B. every chance he got when he left in 2006. The first month he was out of office, he dropped a bombshell about a 50-50 chance of a recession in Japan. Republicans and Democrats are responsible for this mess. Bush's cheer-leading that home ownership is more desirable than renting is bull shit. Not if you can not afford the payments, the upkeep and the taxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo

jay howard
09-28-2008, 06:26 PM
As usual, very little effort is put forward to understand the issue at hand. The negative responses are dominated by a push to lay blame of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter!! and the minority party democrats from 2000 to 2006--ANYONE but the republicans.

We know they are the party of family values and honesty.

And as usual, this analysis falls just short of total fabrication. Do not misunderstand me: I'm no fan of either party. The role of Congress is to get our loyal congressmen and women re-elected. There are about 3 members of congress (all in the House) who seem to be able to align their constituents needs with the Constitution of the US. All the rest and dive headfirst into a meatgrinder for all I care. Do not expect me to defend Barney Frank. And for your own sake, do not look too deeply at the actions of Phill Gramm.

So don't try to paint me as a "liberal democrat" or other such bullsh!t. If you actually buy your own tripe, you appear to believe that republicans are honest and trustworthy while democrats are liars and thieves--as your president forces us to sign off on $700,000 million dollars of our money, no less.

Greed has no party affiliation. The bags of shit occupying our political offices are tools to be used by the people who own them. The massive investment banks who will be nearly extinct as of Monday, Sept 29 are the ones in control. Just like most crimes involving money can be best understood simply by looking at the numbers in the bank accounts, the Iraq war is simply an excuse to make the very wealthy even wealthier. So too is this bailout going to benefit the most well-to-do while leaving the rest of us just about where we were before the "crisis" began.

WHile many are busy trying to place blame, your president is again sticking a pole up our collective butts and calling it "necessary" and "a rescue effort" in a "time of crisis". So go ahead and place blame, but whatever you do, do not look too deeply at anything that may imperil your selective history.

What you fail to understand about the "financial crisis" is that it is not simply a matter of giving people loans who shouldn't have been able to qualify for them. Our problems go much deeper than that and it has largely to do with, essentially, "betting" that went down in these investment banks for a number of outcomes, and that these transactions accounted for the majority of financial transactions for the last decade or so, AND, these transactions had no "market summary" to make them accessible to the every day trader like you and I. We have access to info about stocks and bonds and all kinds of markets--commodities, options, etc., however, we have no knowledge of the kinds of "bets" being placed on things like interest rates and rates of default--which is basically what these packaged mortgage products became.

The investment banks made HUGE fortunes on the transaction fees on these bets--before they ever matured.

Who had the biggest hand in deregulating oversight of these transactions and when? None other than Phill Gramm--McCain's "former" economic advisor.

In December of 2000, on the floor of the Senate, Dr. Gramm (Ph.D in economics), chair of Senate Finance Committee, announced the passage of the The Commodities Futures Modernization Act, (http://banking.senate.gov/prel00/1214comm.htm)written largely by Wallstreet lawyers. This act basically turned mortgages NOT into assets or liabilities, but into objects to be bet on--like horses--and disregarded basic financial concerns of whether the loan would ultimately be repaid at interest.

The scary part of the crisis is that the banks DO NOT EVEN HAVE TO REPORT THEIR LOSSES when related to these gambles.

Who voted for this? Who voted for more regulation of this? The Commodities Futures Trading Commission was established expressly to regulate this kind of financial market, however, the Act championed by Gramm and Lugar, strangely, won the right NOT to be regulated by the CFTC.

Take a look at the Glass-Steagle Act too. It was instituted shortly after the Great Depression and it made a distinction between "investment banks" and "holding banks" so that we would not have to worry about our community bank gambling our money on risky bull. Who made that legal distinction disappear? None other than Phill Gramm.

Try to do some research outside of youtube. Unless you'd like to stay willfully uninformed of the current situation.


.

AmPat
09-29-2008, 01:07 AM
I, for one, am very upset at the meltdown of the mortgage industry thanks to Bill Clinton.

Yes, if you want to know why we are in this mess, look at the Clinton Administration. They are the ones that created legislation and policies forcing Fannie May and Freddie Mac to give loans to poor minorities with bad credit who had no business getting a loan.

It was a liberal policy to create a government program to guarantee loans. No Conservative would ever support the government guaranteeing mortgages. How ironic that liberals are decrying the results of the policies that they create. Government-subsidized loans to non credit-worth people is as liberal of an idea as you can get, and look where it got us.

I agree with a twist. The Clintoon administration could not have done this if the fat cats refused to go along with it. There was NO logical reason to abandon sound lending qualification criteria. Since there is no LOGICAL reason, there must be SOME inferior excuse for it. The only reasons for doing so were paved long ago by an ever-increasing acceptance of a liberal drive toward social engineering.

Cold Warrior has a point; the Republican Congress shares the blame for giving in to liberal policies. This momentum was created in the 60's by the shift from a Conservative Society to Liberal, think Great Society. The Congress up to the 1994 Congress was a run of 42 years for DIMocRATs. Media, although not completely rat-free, was neutral or conservative. This began changing when the Peace, love, and understanding generation became "reporters" and College professors, worse yet, politicians.

Years of unchecked Liberal indoctrination and education have effectively shifted the Conservative threshold of tolerance to the Ideological Left. We are so used to liberal spending habits that Conservatives seldom note the passing of "Fiscally responsible":rolleyes: spending bills laden with pork.

jay howard
09-29-2008, 03:12 PM
I agree with a twist. The Clintoon administration could not have done this if the fat cats refused to go along with it. There was NO logical reason to abandon sound lending qualification criteria. Since there is no LOGICAL reason, there must be SOME inferior excuse for it. The only reasons for doing so were paved long ago by an ever-increasing acceptance of a liberal drive toward social engineering.

Cold Warrior has a point; the Republican Congress shares the blame for giving in to liberal policies. This momentum was created in the 60's by the shift from a Conservative Society to Liberal, think Great Society. The Congress up to the 1994 Congress was a run of 42 years for DIMocRATs. Media, although not completely rat-free, was neutral or conservative. This began changing when the Peace, love, and understanding generation became "reporters" and College professors, worse yet, politicians.

Years of unchecked Liberal indoctrination and education have effectively shifted the Conservative threshold of tolerance to the Ideological Left. We are so used to liberal spending habits that Conservatives seldom note the passing of "Fiscally responsible":rolleyes: spending bills laden with pork.

This passing the buck for everything back to Bill Clinton (or Jimmy Carter in some cases!!) is just the most lazy and irresponsible kind of dialogue.

You want to find "causes" but your analysis goes conveniently around the two most significant financial trading law changes enacted in 1999 and 2000 respectively, and base your entire very weak argument on some vaguely disguised contempt for the poor.

The problem is NOT that American are defaulting on $700 billion in mortgage debt. Is that what you think is happening?


.

AmPat
09-30-2008, 01:45 AM
This passing the buck for everything back to Bill Clinton (or Jimmy Carter in some cases!!) is just the most lazy and irresponsible kind of dialogue.

You want to find "causes" but your analysis goes conveniently around the two most significant financial trading law changes enacted in 1999 and 2000 respectively, and base your entire very weak argument on some vaguely disguised contempt for the poor.

The problem is NOT that American are defaulting on $700 billion in mortgage debt. Is that what you think is happening?


.

1. Who "passed the buck" back to Clinton/Carter?
2. My "analysis" has many ommissions and was not written as a comprehensive analysis. It is an opinion based upon in part the ideas I did chose to include. If you want more, buy a book.
3. Where is there any evidence of "some vaguely disguised contempt for the poor?"
I believe my points were clear. Two main points being the gradual shift of our culture toward liberal/Socialist ideas and the SHARED responsibility of a gutless Republican Party. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? :confused:

Constitutionally Speaking
09-30-2008, 07:12 AM
I know, I know. There is NO PROBLEM, do you hear. Don't worry, be happy. All of this nonsense about economic problems is just an invention of the liberal media in a plot to elect Obama. After all, the economy in the swamplands is booming, with housing prices going through the roof. Anyone who says differently is a "Doom and Gloomer."

But, supposing, and this is just a supposition for argument's sake, there was a problem, it's definitely the fault of:

1. Jimmy Carter, whose last day in office was over 28 years ago
2. The Democratic Congress of the last two years
3. The immoral William Jefferson Clinton

After all, how could any blame fall on the Idiot Child who's been in office for almost 8 years, or the Republican Congress who was in power from 1994-2006 (excepting, of course, the Jeffords era). Anyone who would even think that part, if not the majority of the blame lies there, is a "whiner," an "out of the closet Democrat," or, more likely, a Commie.


Perhaps you could explain, HOW (other than not being effective enough to garner the votes over democrat (and rino) majorities) Bush could have stopped this?


The fact of the matter is that the Community Reinvestment act DID lay the foundation for the current problems. President Clinton DID cause the issue to vastly accelerate with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. It is not so much the congess of the last two years, it is the Democrats in congress over the last 30 years who kept adding damaging provisions and requirements on our banking system to "help" poor people. It was people like Barney Frank who literally used the law to FORCE these bad loans to be made.

It was the community activists SUING companies like Citibank for NOT making these risky loans to enough people.

The biggest greed, if you look, ALL was on the part of Democrat cronies and supporters. People like Raines, Gorelick, and Jim Johnson.


It was not the failure of Capitalism - it was the interference with capitalism by the socialists like Barny Frank and Barack Obama.


ANYONE who says otherwise is either a completely ignorant idiot or is a lying asshole.

jay howard
10-01-2008, 01:47 PM
Perhaps you could explain, HOW (other than not being effective enough to garner the votes over democrat (and rino) majorities) Bush could have stopped this?


The fact of the matter is that the Community Reinvestment act DID lay the foundation for the current problems. President Clinton DID cause the issue to vastly accelerate with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. It is not so much the congess of the last two years, it is the Democrats in congress over the last 30 years who kept adding damaging provisions and requirements on our banking system to "help" poor people. It was people like Barney Frank who literally used the law to FORCE these bad loans to be made.

It was the community activists SUING companies like Citibank for NOT making these risky loans to enough people.

The biggest greed, if you look, ALL was on the part of Democrat cronies and supporters. People like Raines, Gorelick, and Jim Johnson.


It was not the failure of Capitalism - it was the interference with capitalism by the socialists like Barny Frank and Barack Obama.


ANYONE who says otherwise is either a completely ignorant idiot or is a lying asshole.

This may illuminate your point about the Glass-Steagall Act repeal of 1999: roll call for repeal of Glass-Steagall Act. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105)

You will notice that Joe Biden voted against it while John McCain voted for it. In fact, the vote split almost precisely down party lines with only one Democrat voting for it: Senator Hollings of SC.

Make of that what you will, but it would be near fabrication to try to paint the decommission of Glass-Steagall as a democrat-backed moved. Unless it's opposites day.


.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-01-2008, 06:26 PM
This may illuminate your point about the Glass-Steagall Act repeal of 1999: roll call for repeal of Glass-Steagall Act. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105)

You will notice that Joe Biden voted against it while John McCain voted for it. In fact, the vote split almost precisely down party lines with only one Democrat voting for it: Senator Hollings of SC.

Make of that what you will, but it would be near fabrication to try to paint the decommission of Glass-Steagall as a democrat-backed moved. Unless it's opposites day.


.


Ah, but that is but one part of the equation. I have often stated that there is blame to go around but there is absoulutely NO escaping the fact that the mortgage companies were FORCED to make these bad loans BY DEMOCRATS and that Barack Obama's law firm AND ACORN were involved in lawsuits against companies that refused to make those loans. In addition, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were slated for oversight in both 2003 and in 2005 by the Republicans and the DEMOCRATS refused to acknowledge any problems and blocked the legislation.

Glass-Steagall allowed the cancer to spread throughout the financial services industry instead of being contained in the mortgage industry. That was bad and allowed the damage to hit more companies. It was a mistake, but again it was not the fault of Bush, of Capitalism or free markets.

Again, anyone who says otherwise is lying or ignorant.

jay howard
10-03-2008, 03:35 PM
Ah, but that is but one part of the equation. I have often stated that there is blame to go around but there is absoulutely NO escaping the fact that the mortgage companies were FORCED to make these bad loans BY DEMOCRATS and that Barack Obama's law firm AND ACORN were involved in lawsuits against companies that refused to make those loans. In addition, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were slated for oversight in both 2003 and in 2005 by the Republicans and the DEMOCRATS refused to acknowledge any problems and blocked the legislation.

Glass-Steagall allowed the cancer to spread throughout the financial services industry instead of being contained in the mortgage industry. That was bad and allowed the damage to hit more companies. It was a mistake, but again it was not the fault of Bush, of Capitalism or free markets.

Again, anyone who says otherwise is lying or ignorant.

Agian, our current financial situation is not the result of $700 billion worth of subprime foreclosures. It's not that this money doesn't exist to be paid back to the banks--thus causing a credit crunch.

No. If this is your understanding--as your reply indicates--you are mistaken. This money exists still. The problem is that it has been shoveled into private hands through the "derivatives market"--of which normal people like us have no access to.

The derivatives market, as it emerged in late 2000 under the control of the massive investment banks, were essentially unregulated casinos. At least Vegas-style casinos properly hedge their bets. In the derivatives market, products were sold as if they were covering the bets--like insurance, however, since there was no legislation regulating the cost-to-reimbursement amounts--like states do with any insurance product sold, they obviously were not able to make good on the amounts lost during these gambles.

Wallstreet insiders made substantial fortunes in the last 7 years from these markets. And now you and I are left with the tab. The money got siphoned off. Now we have to make more because the banks claim they don't have any to lend.

To try to lay the blame on Fannie and Freddie is short-sighted at best. The thieves on wallstreet and the congress-bags who work for them are COUNTING on us NOT understanding what is happening. As usual, the people on this site feel something is amiss, and as a kneejerk reaction, feel compelled to blame the evil, socialist democrats!

BTW, your free market capitalist republicans have helped pass the mother of all tax hikes (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95336601) today.





..

Constitutionally Speaking
10-07-2008, 10:24 PM
Agian, our current financial situation is not the result of $700 billion worth of subprime foreclosures. It's not that this money doesn't exist to be paid back to the banks--thus causing a credit crunch.

No. If this is your understanding--as your reply indicates--you are mistaken. This money exists still. The problem is that it has been shoveled into private hands through the "derivatives market"--of which normal people like us have no access to.

The derivatives market, as it emerged in late 2000 under the control of the massive investment banks, were essentially unregulated casinos. At least Vegas-style casinos properly hedge their bets. In the derivatives market, products were sold as if they were covering the bets--like insurance, however, since there was no legislation regulating the cost-to-reimbursement amounts--like states do with any insurance product sold, they obviously were not able to make good on the amounts lost during these gambles.

Wallstreet insiders made substantial fortunes in the last 7 years from these markets. And now you and I are left with the tab. The money got siphoned off. Now we have to make more because the banks claim they don't have any to lend.

To try to lay the blame on Fannie and Freddie is short-sighted at best. The thieves on wallstreet and the congress-bags who work for them are COUNTING on us NOT understanding what is happening. As usual, the people on this site feel something is amiss, and as a kneejerk reaction, feel compelled to blame the evil, socialist democrats!

BTW, your free market capitalist republicans have helped pass the mother of all tax hikes (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95336601) today.





..

Not a bit of this would matter if the loans were not made in the first place. Not one bit of it.