Bill Clinton...
Barney Frank... "Even if there were problems the federal government doesn't bail them out" (He sure changed his song)
Pelosi before the bailout vote pinning it all on "Failed Bush economic policies" when in fact the dems fought his efforts to stop the bleeding. This speach killed the passage of the bailout which some think would have helped fix the mess.
Just so you know.
And here's a little bonus for ya. Bill Clinton on the comparison between being an associate of Rev Wright or David Duke, the KKK guy. Speechless.
WePlayCiv Forum Moderator
BRR Forum Moderator
Off Duty...
Last video: Bill Clinton steering away from idiotic issues clouding the campaign
(Though I'd change that to aif he was previously saying something about associations with Duke that brought on the comparison between association with Duke and Wright.)
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Hmmm... Bill Clinton's first video (even though I don't agree with the uptick rule) is actually refreshing. He admitted that his party had made mistakes. If only everyone (including Bill) could be so honest more often.
Lots of blame for this to go around...
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
And Fox
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
I'm perfectly willing to believe it was an irresponsible speech, but seriously, if a bunch of Republican congresscritters switched their votes b/c mean 'ole Nancy hurt their feelings... dude! That's incredible, and far worse than what she did. I don't think that's why the votes didn't materialize, though.This speach killed the passage of the bailout which some think would have helped fix the mess.
My answer to how we got into this mess:
1) Fannie and Freddie were quasi-governmental agencies, with the "implicit" backing of the government, and often staffed with politicos, instead of financial experts. The Dems are probably more to blame here (they were more involved with Fan & Fred, and they are the party that tends to push for lending to the poor, regardless of the sanity of such lending), but the Republicans had Congress in the 90s and had both the Pres and the Congress in the 00s and failed to fix the problem. Seems to me then that they share some blame.
2) Piss-poor oversight of banking/financial companies. This one is on both parties as wel, IMO. The Reps for their constant "deregulate everything!" mantra. The Dems b/c Franks and Dodd were apparently asleep at the switch.
3) A whole bunch of stupid people. Lenders offering mortgages they never should have offered, and people accepting them. A culture that distains saving. Borrow everything! Want something you can't afford? Charge it, man. Want to go fight a war but don't want to pay for it? No problem, just borrow the money. Somebody else will deal with it.
-Arrian
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Clearly Pelosi telling the Republicans it was their fault FORCED the Republicans to vote against what they thought was in Americas best interest? No no no, it could not possibly be they are playing partisan bullshit, instead, Pelosi has a magical power over them, wherein, they would have voted for the bailout, but Pelosi's speach forced them to vote against what they thought was in the U.S.'s best interest?
Raines, and his numerous Democratic backers (mainly CBC) running interference for him. This could have all been avoided back in 2006.
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
Pelosi is Bene Gesserit!Originally posted by Vesayen
Clearly Pelosi telling the Republicans it was their fault FORCED the Republicans to vote against what they thought was in Americas best interest? No no no, it could not possibly be they are playing partisan bullshit, instead, Pelosi has a magical power over them, wherein, they would have voted for the bailout, but Pelosi's speach forced them to vote against what they thought was in the U.S.'s best interest?
I think the idea that this could've been "avoided" is a bit of a pipe dream. If you want to say "dealt with in a less painful manner" then fine. But there was always going to be pain.
-Arrian
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Oh, Lancer, you and your "gotcha" journalismWhat would McCain say if he saw you?
Do you think she will sell me some spice, or teach me the ways of the force? Clearly the Republicans are weak minded if they fall for jedi mind tricks.Originally posted by Lorizael
Pelosi is Bene Gesserit!
*waves his hand* These are not the corporate tax cuts you are looking for!
Yeah, mitigated is more like it. The underpinnings of this crisis are over a decade old.
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
Wrong. The basis of the crisis is when regulating bodies under the control of the Republicans, changed regulations, i.e. eliminated them, while at the same time encouraging more people to take out mortgages they could not afford.
Prior, lenders were required to make some effort to ensure the people borrowing, could pay. The regulators removed that, this mess happened as a result(with some steps in between by private actors not members of the government).
People are treating this like some long term impossible to understand economic mystery, it is not.
Lenders did not mind giving out bad loans because they made a killing in the fees and then sold the loans to the big interests, who packaged good loans with crappy loans and split them into pieces, than sold them to investors. It lasted till people realized they were buying worthless securities, than no one wanted to buy them and the holders of the interests were than stuck with them.
If the regulation requiring that lenders actually see that the borrowers could afford to pay, this would not have happened.
Except that although you and others on this board have been asked this many times you can not actual produce relevant regulations that were removed.Wrong. The basis of the crisis is when regulating bodies under the control of the Republicans, changed regulations, i.e. eliminated them, while at the same time encouraging more people to take out mortgages they could not afford.
You also can't produce Democratic proposed regulations to fix the underlying problems. Finding sensible Republican regulation proposals is easy.
Its not about less or more regulation, it is about the right regulation.
You really have no idea how this happened do you?Look up Raines and the 2006 Freddie Mac/Fanny Mae accounting scandel, and then look up who his supporters were and what they struck down.Prior, lenders were required to make some effort to ensure the people borrowing, could pay. The regulators removed that, this mess happened as a result(with some steps in between by private actors not members of the government).
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
Regulations for many agencies are internal and not something easily available to the public outside of official documents for the industry. Further, even if they are not readily available or easy to find, that does not mean they do not exist. I suppose the New York Times and other respectable media sources are lying about this in some sort of grand conspiracy?Except that although you and others on this board have been asked this many times you can not actual produce relevant regulations that were removed.
How is this relevant?You also can't produce Democratic proposed regulations to fix the underlying problems. Find Republican regulation proposals is easy.
Thank you for being honest enough to admit that you are talking out of your ass when speaking about deregulation.Regulations for many agencies are internal and not something easily available to the public outside of official documents for the industry. Further, even if they are not readily available or easy to find, that does not mean they do not exist. I suppose the New York Times and other respectable media sources are lying about this in some sort of grand conspiracy?
It is refreshing to see a Polytubbie able to admit they don't actually have anything to back up there claims. Bravo
How is sane regulation proposed by the Republicans tailored specifically to prevent the very crisis currently transpiring relevant in a thread where you are blaming Republicans for not supporting regulation? Seriously?How is this relevant?
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
You want me to give you internal documents from an administrative agency which says that they will no longer regulate an industry in a certain way-where can I get that from? Simply because I do not have it, does not mean the policy does not exist. Do you think the New York Times and others in the media, as well as congressman who talk about it, invented this as a big lie? Is it a conspiracy?
It was the national policy for several years. You could go into a bank and ask for a mortgage and they would only ask you about your financial situation, not asking for any proof. 12 years ago if you walked into a bank and asked for a mortgage, the banks were required to get varying levels of proof you could afford it-what more evidence is needed?
The Republicans are to blame because they were in pwoer when the change was made.
I'm think there was a raising (or elimination?) of leveraging limits as one of the "deregulations" that is responsible for this mess. This was SEC regulations that were loosened up in 2004.
I don't want to search for the actual regulations right now... maybe later. Here's the first reference:
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...tory-exem.html
Must just be a coincidence there? Leverage up 30:1, on virtually any assets, and things can turn ugly really fast.Instead, the 2004 exemption -- given only to 5 firms -- allowed them to lever up 30 and even 40 to 1.
Who were the five that received this special exemption? You won't be surprised to learn that they were Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Morgan Stanley.
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Just something interesting about level 3 assets... and leveraging. (From May 08)
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=17068
You would have done pretty well shorting this list so far...Ten companies now have more Level 3 assets than capital. In order they are (as a % of total shareholder equity:
1) Bear Stearns (BSC): 313.97%
2) Morgan Stanley (MS): 234.88%
3) Merrill Lynch (MER): 225.4%
4) Goldman Sachs (GS): 191.56%
5) Lehman (LEH): 171.18%
6) Fannie Mae (FNM): 161.48%
7) Northwest Air (NWA): 142.02%
8) Citigroup (C): 125.06%
9) Prudential (PRU): 119.36%
10) Hartford (HIG): 108.52%
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Why not just make these assets illegal? They seem to be the biggest part of the problem.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
You want me to give you internal documents from an administrative agency which says that they will no longer regulate an industry in a certain way-where can I get that from? Simply because I do not have it, does not mean the policy does not exist. Do you think the New York Times and others in the media, as well as congressman who talk about it, invented this as a big lie? Is it a conspiracy?
So, just to make this clear, something doesn't exist so instead of going with that you decide to assume it must exist to justify your ranting? Do you know what a truther is?
Vesayan
And what made that standard practice? Again, look of Raines and then look up who his backers are. Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae are intimately liked to one party. Hint, it isn't the Republicans.It was the national policy for several years. You could go into a bank and ask for a mortgage and they would only ask you about your financial situation, not asking for any proof. 12 years ago if you walked into a bank and asked for a mortgage, the banks were required to get varying levels of proof you could afford it-what more evidence is needed?
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
Well, I don't think they need to be illegal, just firms have to be held accountable if they leverage themselves up on illiquid assets. It's not rocket surgery... if you can't sell an asset quickly and you're leveraged up 30:1... a ~3% move can wipe you out. And 3% moves, even in the most stable assets, can happen rather quickly.
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Patroklos: Yes or no: "I believe that the New York Times and other members of the media as well as members of Congress have lied to us about changes in regulation."
For instance, FX markets allow up to 200:1 leveraging. They can do that because cash is... well... extremely liquid. The FX markets are open 24/7, so if something starts to move against you, you can cover your ass (or your broker can force you to do so).
It's the leveraging on illiquid assets that's the problem. (Or one of the problems.)
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Hmmm... someone(s) else seems to have taken a notice to HIG (off the level 3 list... though that's probably not where they noticed it)
Falling like a rock.
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
This is great.We're all agreed that this whole mess is a case of the left using home mortgages that could never be repaid to buy votes among the poor? Yes?
Excellent, I don't have to look in this thread any more now.
WePlayCiv Forum Moderator
BRR Forum Moderator
Off Duty...
But the thing is that we all pay for it when they are held accountable. Since that's the case we need to outright prevent it.Originally posted by Aeson
Well, I don't think they need to be illegal, just firms have to be held accountable if they leverage themselves up on illiquid assets. It's not rocket surgery... if you can't sell an asset quickly and you're leveraged up 30:1... a ~3% move can wipe you out. And 3% moves, even in the most stable assets, can happen rather quickly.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
I wouldn't necessarily call them the left, or include everyone on the left, with them. Many politicians believe that all americans should own homes because home owners value property rights more. That's in a sense not leftist.Originally posted by Lancer
This is great.
Excellent, I don't have to look in this thread any more now.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
I seem to recall a certain President of the United States, when running for re-election in 2004, touting the high percentage of home ownership achieved under his presidency.Originally posted by Lancer
This is great.
The New York Times are just wrong but it is a fact they are not above straight lies, the media claims both depending on the segment. But hey, its not like either of them have bothered to provide concrete examples either.Patroklos: Yes or no: "I believe that the New York Times and other members of the media as well as members of Congress have lied to us about changes in regulation."
Again, Veyesan, what regulations were changed to facilitate the crisis? If the NYT told you which ones, feel free to tell us. Until you do this you are in truther territory.
ALL politicians like high ownership rates when it suits their purposes because they pretend home ownership = prosperity = I did a good job.I wouldn't necessarily call them the left, or include everyone on the left, with them. Many politicians believe that all americans should own homes because home owners value property rights more. That's in a sense not leftist.
It is stupid, and people need to get over it.
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks