Gotta Love Those Democrats

GreenMachine · February 10, 2009

I has worked GREAT for this country in the past.
...Government regulation should be in place ONLY to keep corruption in check, but the Government should not be over-regulating the economy.
Mark to market is STILL in place and it MUST be overturned. <-- Regulation causing problems for this economy
Mortgage Crisis was NOT caused by the banks alone - "everyone needs a home" policies pushed on banks by Congress <-- Regulation causing problems for this economy
Interest Rates artificially low <-- Regulation causing problems for this economy
The BEST way to fix this is to undo the laws that are stupid and artifically screw up financial statements, get interest rates back up to where a bank can actually MAKE some money by lending it out, and if we're going to spend money on ANYTHING, then the Government should step up, help the banks who THEY strong-armed into making loans to people who couldn't pay it back and help offset some of those bad loans.
...then give EVERYONE (WHO PAYS TAXES) a tax cut, cut the corporate tax rate in half (at least) in the short term, drop capital gains tax to 0% in the short term, and eliminate the death tax forever.
...then get out of the way and watch this economy go nuts...

but that is so unfair to the people that don't pay taxes you big meanie! Where is their handout in all this?

Edited February 10, 2009 by GreenMachine

KRAM1 · February 10, 2009

Gee, sorry about the name spelling....and someone throws Iceland into the mix! Good Golly Miss Molly!

Coffee and TV · February 10, 2009

<-- Regulation causing problems for this economy
Mortgage Crisis was NOT caused by the banks alone - "everyone needs a home" policies pushed on banks by Congress <-- Regulation causing problems for this economy

You truly are a moron if you still believe this.

yyz28 · February 11, 2009

You truly are a moron if you still believe this.

What is it with you people? You can't argue the point, you just start calling names. ROTFLMAO!!! Show me how I'm wrong.

...I'm prepared to back up my opinion, with... GASP... some historical facts.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration, though he should have had the nads to do something about it or at least publically raise the alarm before the crisis became one.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that those who produce our daily papers tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, they would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, they criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the President who was the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, Obama's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If John McCain's campagin had consulted with him, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories from the press every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so the story was burreid, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — the press actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign. ...apparently you bought it.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

The prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If the press had any personal honor, they would find it unbearable to let the American people (including, apparently, you) believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

Even now, the press is consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. We have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush; he's not even here to defend himself anymore, so he's a super-easy target.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and the press have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

The truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. The truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

I'm willing to admit that some executives and companies took advantage of the easy money these policies to line their own pockets - I'm not putting my head in the sand - but it was Bad Government Regulation that allowed the problem to flourish.

I wouldn't call you a name. I may disagree. I may not see how you come to the conclusions you come to... ...but I'm willing to admit you can come to a different conclusion without assuming you're a dumbass.

...we DID graduate from the same institution, afterall.

GreenMachine · February 11, 2009

What is it with you people? You can't argue the point, you just start calling names. ROTFLMAO!!! Show me how I'm wrong.
...I'm prepared to back up my opinion, with... GASP... some historical facts.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration, though he should have had the nads to do something about it or at least publically raise the alarm before the crisis became one.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that those who produce our daily papers tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, they would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, they criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the President who was the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, Obama's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If John McCain's campagin had consulted with him, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories from the press every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so the story was burreid, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — the press actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign. ...apparently you bought it.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
The prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If the press had any personal honor, they would find it unbearable to let the American people (including, apparently, you) believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
Even now, the press is consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. We have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush; he's not even here to defend himself anymore, so he's a super-easy target.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and the press have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
The truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. The truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
I'm willing to admit that some executives and companies took advantage of the easy money these policies to line their own pockets - I'm not putting my head in the sand - but it was Bad Government Regulation that allowed the problem to flourish.
I wouldn't call you a name. I may disagree. I may not see how you come to the conclusions you come to... ...but I'm willing to admit you can come to a different conclusion without assuming you're a dumbass.
...we DID graduate from the same institution, afterall.

dude, you got called a moron by someone that makes $11/hr.

yyz28 · February 11, 2009

dude, you got called a moron by someone that makes $11/hr.

Well, that's ok. I don't think his income legitimizes or illegitimizes his argument. I just think name calling is silly, and does nothing for anyone's argument. Our income levels or jobs has nothing to do with the debate.

Quoner · February 11, 2009

I'm all about breakin' necks and cashin' checks. POW!

Coffee and TV · February 11, 2009

What is it with you people? You can't argue the point, you just start calling names. ROTFLMAO!!! Show me how I'm wrong.
...I'm prepared to back up my opinion, with... GASP... some historical facts.

blah blah blah blah

Here's a fact: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don't/didn't make subprime loans.

I win.

Coffee and TV · February 11, 2009

dude, you got called a moron by someone that makes $11/hr.

At least I'm working. In this economy there are a lot of college grads out there that aren't right now.

And while calling him a name is a little silly and offhanded, remembering my salary from a post I made 6 months ago is even sadder.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Coffee and TV

hickoryhouse · February 11, 2009

Here's a fact: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don't/didn't make subprime loans.
I win.

No they don't make the loans but they do guarantee to buy them from banks so that the banks have no fear when they make a risky loan because they know that Fannie and Freddie will be there to buy it up from them thus leaving them with no risk of default. Then Fannie and Freddie bundle up loans that they have purchased and sell them to what is called Tertiary markets as a good, or A Paper, loan. Fannie and Freddie had every right to create regulations in regards to "risky loans" but because the are sponsered by the government, and they enjoyed selling the tertiary markets securities made of the bad loans, that they knew were not as valuable as they were saying they were, they did not. Instead they encouraged the private banks to make the loans based upon the "encouragement" of the federal government.

Just in case anyone was wondering how Fannie and Freddie work, on a basic level, the following comes from Al Jazeera English

http://english.aljazeera.net/business/2008...1713856139.html

What is it exactly that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do?
As stated above, the principal act that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are mandated to do, is to buy mortgages from private banks. The private banks, meanwhile, make mortgage loans with the comfort of knowing that they will be able turn around and sell those loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
This "comfort" has two aspects. First, the banks which make the initial loans in the primary market get their liquidity back when they sell off their mortgages in the secondary market to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
They can, therefore, make fresh mortgages to new customers with the funds they received from selling the previous mortgages, thereby making it possible for greater homeownership.
The second benefit that private banks get from the existence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is that they can offer mortgages to middle class and low income households at affordable interest rates with the sure knowledge that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will take those mortgages over.
Where do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get the funds to buy these mortgages from the private banks? They raise funds first by issuing bonds on Wall Street just like any private company.
Then, in addition, they sell some of their mortgage holdings in the "tertiary" markets. They pool together a lot of mortgages and create a marketable security. These are called mortgage backed securities (MBS). If any household, whose mortgage is part of a MBS, fails to pay its mortgage obligation for, say, a month, then Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, whoever is the relevant party, will make good the payment to the MBS holder.

So, Coffee, you are right, Fannie and Freddie do not make the loans. However they are the sole reason tha banks can make the loans, they guarantee them and buy them.

yyz28 · February 11, 2009

No they don't make the loans but they do guarantee to buy them from banks so that the banks have no fear when they make a risky loan because they know that Fannie and Freddie will be there to buy it up from them thus leaving them with no risk of default. Then Fannie and Freddie bundle up loans that they have purchased and sell them to what is called Tertiary markets as a good, or A Paper, loan. Fannie and Freddie had every right to create regulations in regards to "risky loans" but because the are sponsered by the government, and they enjoyed selling the tertiary markets securities made of the bad loans, that they knew were not as valuable as they were saying they were, they did not. Instead they encouraged the private banks to make the loans based upon the "encouragement" of the federal government.
Just in case anyone was wondering how Fannie and Freddie work, on a basic level, the following comes from Al Jazeera English
http://english.aljazeera.net/business/2008...1713856139.html
So, Coffee, you are right, Fannie and Freddie do not make the loans. However they are the sole reason tha banks can make the loans, they guarantee them and buy them.

Beat me to it.

C'mon Coffee... The facts don't support your version of what happened here. Did business take advantage of the situation to line their pockets? Damn right they did. ...but did misguided government regulations and programs give them the opportunity to? Clearly, the answer is yes.

Too bad you dismiss every argument made with "blah blah blah"... ...at least I know where you stand.

Coffee and TV · February 11, 2009

Beat me to it.
C'mon Coffee... The facts don't support your version of what happened here. Did business take advantage of the situation to line their pockets? Damn right they did. ...but did misguided government regulations and programs give them the opportunity to? Clearly, the answer is yes.
Too bad you dismiss every argument made with "blah blah blah"... ...at least I know where you stand.

http://www.gomeangreen.com/forums/index.ph...mp;#entry387329

That's easier than trying to dig up all the links I used.

Well, that's ok. I don't think his income legitimizes or illegitimizes his argument. I just think name calling is silly, and does nothing for anyone's argument. Our income levels or jobs has nothing to do with the debate.

Thanks a lot for this by the way, its true class. And I definitely apologize for name calling. I assume that GreenMachine isn't aware that Einstein was a patent clerk when his theory of relativity was published, or that Howard Stern held down a crummy job in an ad agency before he broke big. <_<

And fine, if you don't buy that Fannie and Freddie aren't to blame then good on you, but between reading the paper during my down time at work and getting 1000/1000 on Tiger Woods 09, you are way too verbose to keep up with.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Coffee and TV

mad dog · February 11, 2009

No they don't make the loans but they do guarantee to buy them from banks so that the banks have no fear when they make a risky loan because they know that Fannie and Freddie will be there to buy it up from them thus leaving them with no risk of default. Then Fannie and Freddie bundle up loans that they have purchased and sell them to what is called Tertiary markets as a good, or A Paper, loan. Fannie and Freddie had every right to create regulations in regards to "risky loans" but because the are sponsered by the government, and they enjoyed selling the tertiary markets securities made of the bad loans, that they knew were not as valuable as they were saying they were, they did not. Instead they encouraged the private banks to make the loans based upon the "encouragement" of the federal government.
Just in case anyone was wondering how Fannie and Freddie work, on a basic level, the following comes from Al Jazeera English
http://english.aljazeera.net/business/2008...1713856139.html
So, Coffee, you are right, Fannie and Freddie do not make the loans. However they are the sole reason tha banks can make the loans, they guarantee them and buy them.

Jeez man. You've come a long way from D400. I am truly and duly impressed.

Oh... and banhammer for coffee. Even in the slime pit that is Non-Unt News, name calling is still verboten.

UNTFan23 · February 12, 2009

Jeez man. You've come a long way from D400. I am truly and duly impressed.
Oh... and banhammers for yyz and coffee. Even in the slime pit that is Non-Unt News, name calling is still verboten.

OK, I see how coffee gets a tempa-ban but not-so-much with yyz.

Disclaimer: I am in no way challenging or even arguing with the admins, just trying to understand where the line was crossed is all. If need be, PM me with the intimate details.

mad dog · February 12, 2009

OK, I see how coffee gets a tempa-ban but not-so-much with yyz.
Disclaimer: I am in no way challenging or even arguing with the admins, just trying to understand where the line was crossed is all. If need be, PM me with the intimate details.

I am going to use this as an example, since I see a lot of this line of thinking.

Saying "I'm not arguing" and then following it up with "I don't see how X merited a punishment for Y" is debating board policy. If you really feel your human rights are being impugned, you are free to post somewhere else.

You have been warned.