Privatized profits and socialised losses...
-
BoneSoft wrote:
disasterous results of government meddling
Nope. Had the regulations governing mortgage investment and investment banking not been "liberalized" by multiple "conservative" administrations, this could not have happened. And this National Socialist rescue of the guilty companies is being foisted on us by the Republican Administration, no one else. Someone explain why it's the Investment Banks that need bailing out, rather than the account holders? Why not just garauntee all $401K and similar statutory retirement accounts including pension plans (most of whom likely have little sxposure to this crap) and let the hedge funds and the like take the pain. Let these dealers in worthless paper fail.
Rob Graham wrote:
Nope. Had the regulations governing mortgage investment and investment banking not been "liberalized" by multiple "conservative" administrations, this could not have happened.
Government meddling.
Rob Graham wrote:
And this National Socialist rescue of the guilty companies is being foisted on us by the Republican Administration, no one else.
Yes, it happened on their watch. I would assume the problem has been growing for more than 8 years though. The rest I agree with. I want them to explain the consequences of not bailing them out, and they also need to scrap their plan and write something that includes some oversight. And then let US decide whether or not to foot the bill. But they should first squeeze everybody who profitted for all they're worth before dropping it in our laps.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Actually, this insinuates that Bush might be Caesar[^]. Question is, is there anybody on Capital Hill clean enough to play Brutus?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Question is, is there anybody on Capital Hill clean enough to play Brutus?
"Et Tu, Johannes?" But it's importantant to remember that it was Caesar's nephew who became the first Emperor of Rome. Big Julie, Marc Anthony, Brutus, Crassius, Cleopatra -- all dead.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Rob Graham wrote:
They're sure fighting harder to give away more borrowed money to the banks and insurers that ran amuck without regulation.
And what choice do they have? If they don't do it they risk a meltdown of the entire international economy. All of this was inevitable from the very first moment Fannie Mae was created.
Rob Graham wrote:
He'll be rembembered as the destroyer of the mighty US Econmomy, and of the republican party, for neither will likely ever recover. Another $T to the national debt in one weeks time. Unbelievable.
All of which will enable the real culprits to cause even more havoc which will end up blamed on some future president.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
All of which will enable the real culprits to cause even more havoc which will end up blamed on some future president.
It was Bush's watch. He's not innocent, just stupid and venal. The "real culprits" are everyone that has been part of this mess and who had any power to stop it from happening. No exceptions.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
But from what I understand it's Clinton's "sub-prime mortgage" that killed us.
Until Reagan reformed the tax code, Mortgages were safe, secure, and boring. By eliminating the tax exemption for all other kids of debt, he made them attractive far beyond their intrinsic worth. Ask all the credit card companies. Clinton's people certainly pushed sub-prime mortages, but remember that Clinton's Whitehouse had to get Newt Gingrich's Congress to go along on everything that was done.
BoneSoft wrote:
Because from what I gather it doesn't sound like there's much of a choice
There's always a choice. In this case we are being assured by the people, like Paulson, who caused the problem and the people who were supposed to oversee the system so no-one could create a problem, like Dodd, that, if we hand them a blank check for a trillion dollars (yes, it's supposed to be less, and if you believe it will be, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you) then they (and they alone) will be able to fix this problem they either caused or allowed to be caused. All we have to do is trust them. :wtf: I don't want to play Charlie Brown to their Lucy. They will yank the football away - no question about it. And they will all get richer while they do it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Clinton's people certainly pushed sub-prime mortages, but remember that Clinton's Whitehouse had to get Newt Gingrich's Congress to go along on everything that was done.
Fair enough.
Oakman wrote:
There's always a choice.
God I hope so, I'm not in the least bit interested in wasting my tax money on this. But nobody is tell us what the alternative is. But I guess they woudln't if they have a trillion dollar agenda.
Oakman wrote:
a blank check for a trillion dollars (yes, it's supposed to be less, and if you believe it will be, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you)
The plan says no more than $700B at any time, meaning certainly more. I'm starting to think that maybe the Mayans might have been onto something, except that I'm not so sure we can last until 2012.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
Which includes George Bush the way I parse socialism.
I'm not sure one can describe the Bush political philosophy as socialism some much as corporate welfarism. there really is no name I can think of for this scale of plundering the treasury (read middle class) to line the pockets of the rich. Paulson and cronies should be (I can't say it, FBI would be on me in a minute...). I can only hope that the Democrats force the inclusion of some limits on the degree to which the executives involved can benefit from this. I have given up on the Republicans. They have truly betrayed every conservative principle. I begin to think this was deliberate, to insure that the next Administration would have no money left for social programs, or for that matter, anything else...
Rob Graham wrote:
I'm not sure one can describe the Bush political philosophy as socialism some much as corporate welfarism.
I think Bush's political philosphy was best summed up as "I'm all right, Jack - blow you all!"
Rob Graham wrote:
I begin to think this was deliberate, to insure that the next Administration would have no money left for social programs, or for that matter, anything else...
Remember 2000, when everyone was arguing over how to spend the surplus?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
All of which will enable the real culprits to cause even more havoc which will end up blamed on some future president.
It was Bush's watch. He's not innocent, just stupid and venal. The "real culprits" are everyone that has been part of this mess and who had any power to stop it from happening. No exceptions.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The "real culprits" are everyone that has been part of this mess and who had any power to stop it from happening. No exceptions.
There are specific culprits - and unless we identify them we cannot hope to fix the problem that caused all this. Should Bush and the republicans have done far more to avert all this? Absolutely. But there was constant opposition from the left to any kind of real fix (just as there is for the coming social security meltdown) and there was no courage from any politician to risk what would have been extremely unpopular legislation before the real crisis was upon us. I would be more than happy to support throwing all of these assholes out by whatever means possible. But I am not going to help sugar coat what is a clear cut case of the failure of leftist centralized planning. We conservatives were correct. We have always been correct. The only possible change that will fix all of this is an immediate abandonment of every political principles integrated into our government since the 1930's. The New Deal and the Great Society and all related legislation should be ripped out by the roots. If you are not for that than stop complaining about Bush and what the republicans did or did not do, because you are most certainly as much a part of the problem as they are.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Question is, is there anybody on Capital Hill clean enough to play Brutus?
"Et Tu, Johannes?" But it's importantant to remember that it was Caesar's nephew who became the first Emperor of Rome. Big Julie, Marc Anthony, Brutus, Crassius, Cleopatra -- all dead.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
True, but Caesar didn't have the Secret Service. ;)
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
We should not be bailing them out.
I agree with you. But Zepplin paints an awfully bleak picture of a world where we don't bail-out.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
And why would conservatives support this socialist move?
Personally, I don't support it. But it's sounding like there's not much of an option at this point. Personally, I say we seize the assets of everybody who profited from this and sell them into slavery to fund a recovery.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
sell them into slavery to fund a recovery
A bit harsh, perhaps if we called it 30,000 hours community service, and require those to be served in .. oh .. Helmand, say :D
Bar fomos edo pariyart gedeem, agreo eo dranem abal edyero eyrem kalm kareore
-
If there is one group of people who do not deserve the slightest bit of blame in this entire fiasco, it is conservatives. They had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The entire thing was caused by the government forcing lenders to make loans to people who they otherwise would not have lent to. Did conservatives elect Bush? Yes, we did. Did Bush lead as a conservative? No, he did not. But the only people trying to institute any sort of regulation over fannie and freddy were George Bush and John McCain in the last couple of years, and they were defeated every time by democrat led opposition. The lack of any real regulation has been the work of liberal democrats. They are the culprits here, and them alone. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0[^] What is the proof that republicans are not directly to blame for any of this? A democrat controlled congress is not demanding hearings. They know that the only people who could possibly be found culpable are their own. None of that is to absolve the republicans for not fighting harder, they have not the courage or the will to fight this, but they sure as hell did not cause it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
March 24, 2004. The Bush Administration's Zero Down Payment Initiative is specifically designed to help first-time homebuyers purchase a home. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will insure 100 percent of the cost to acquire the home for first-time homebuyers, allowing them to finance the full purchase price as well as all of the closing costs. In December 2003, President Bush signed into law the American Dream Down Payment Act that authorizes $200 million in formula grants to help homebuyers with down payment and closing costs. FHA's proposed Zero Down Payment Program will complement this program. The President's goal is to expand national homeownership and add 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade. In summary, the Administration and the Department are firmly committed to helping more American families achieve the dream of homeownership.[^]
-
If there is one group of people who do not deserve the slightest bit of blame in this entire fiasco, it is conservatives. They had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The entire thing was caused by the government forcing lenders to make loans to people who they otherwise would not have lent to. Did conservatives elect Bush? Yes, we did. Did Bush lead as a conservative? No, he did not. But the only people trying to institute any sort of regulation over fannie and freddy were George Bush and John McCain in the last couple of years, and they were defeated every time by democrat led opposition. The lack of any real regulation has been the work of liberal democrats. They are the culprits here, and them alone. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0[^] What is the proof that republicans are not directly to blame for any of this? A democrat controlled congress is not demanding hearings. They know that the only people who could possibly be found culpable are their own. None of that is to absolve the republicans for not fighting harder, they have not the courage or the will to fight this, but they sure as hell did not cause it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The entire thing was caused by the government forcing lenders to make loans to people who they otherwise would not have lent to.
Are you saying that banks were forced to make these loans? They HAD TO? By law??? BS. I'm also not talking about blame for how this got to this point. I'm talking about the bailout. The banks did not have to make those loans. They profited from them so they stuck their necks out. They should pay for it. Not taxpayers. That's all I'm saying. Take billions of dollars from the taxpayers and give it to the banks for making bad decisions. Talk about redistributing wealth.
I've heard more said about less.
-
Then the free market concept as it stands on its own is a farce. Because at some point when greed gets out of control the taxpayers will have to bail out the market lest it suffer total collapse through its co-dependency. I state that socialism by itself, and capitalism by itself cannot stand without the other. We are seeing evidence of this today. No longer can any conservatives argue the free market as a stand-alone concept. It has to be tempered and balanced. Regulate the finance and other industries that society is DEPENDENT upon. Reign in greed. Kill all socialist programs (including welfare) and allow the free market to provide them. And raise the minimum wage to a livable one. Balance the two concepts into a workable hybrid. The greed of humans in positions of power and influence is too great of a factor to trust. That's my rant. I'm completely disgusted by this.
I've heard more said about less.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Balance the two concepts into a workable hybrid. The greed of humans in positions of power and influence is too great of a factor to trust.
But why would a hybrid be any less vulnerable to precisely the same human short comings? The notion that if only we can get sufficient power into the hands of the right group of really honest people is the real problem here. It is never going to happen. Free Market capitalism is absolutely as vulnerable to greed, corruption and stupidity as is any other human endeavor. But that is not going to ever be solved by giving ever more regulatory power to a bunch of government bureaucrats who are only there in the first place because of how easy it is to corrupt such systems. When any business executive breaks the law, they should be held to exactly the same legal standards that anyone else in the society is who breaks the law. If they lie or cheat or steal to acquire wealth, they should be punished for it. But otherwise they should be free to pursue their business as they please. If that simple formula can not be made to work, than nothing else possibly can.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The entire thing was caused by the government forcing lenders to make loans to people who they otherwise would not have lent to.
Are you saying that banks were forced to make these loans? They HAD TO? By law??? BS. I'm also not talking about blame for how this got to this point. I'm talking about the bailout. The banks did not have to make those loans. They profited from them so they stuck their necks out. They should pay for it. Not taxpayers. That's all I'm saying. Take billions of dollars from the taxpayers and give it to the banks for making bad decisions. Talk about redistributing wealth.
I've heard more said about less.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Are you saying that banks were forced to make these loans? They HAD TO? By law??? BS.
It isn't BS, banks that did not make such loans were not allowed to grow in the communities that they were serving.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
They profited from them so they stuck their necks out.
They came up with a plan, with the help of fannie mae, etc, to make a profit from what would otherwise have been taken directly out of their bottom line. But making a profit is precisely what banks are supposed to do, otherwise, no interests on your savings. None of this would have been possible without the existence of fannie mae.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
The banks did not have to make those loans. They profited from them so they stuck their necks out. They should pay for it. Not taxpayers. That's all I'm saying. Take billions of dollars from the taxpayers and give it to the banks for making bad decisions. Talk about redistributing wealth.
I agree completely. But if they don't, the economy melts down completely taking all our jobs and all our homes with it. I would even prefer that if it would put a stop to this vile system. But no politcian is ever going to voluntarily do that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
March 24, 2004. The Bush Administration's Zero Down Payment Initiative is specifically designed to help first-time homebuyers purchase a home. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will insure 100 percent of the cost to acquire the home for first-time homebuyers, allowing them to finance the full purchase price as well as all of the closing costs. In December 2003, President Bush signed into law the American Dream Down Payment Act that authorizes $200 million in formula grants to help homebuyers with down payment and closing costs. FHA's proposed Zero Down Payment Program will complement this program. The President's goal is to expand national homeownership and add 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade. In summary, the Administration and the Department are firmly committed to helping more American families achieve the dream of homeownership.[^]
To his credit, Mr. Bush accurately foresaw the danger posed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and began calling as early as 2002 for greater regulation. [^]
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Sorry, there's no relationship. This is (as Chris points out below) a crisis caused by greedy financial companies run amuck. It is a failure of regulation,.
It's the disasterous results of government meddling where it doesn't belong.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
I agree that this is due to the government meddling in the market but not in way that you see it. This crisis in my opinion is a first order effect of this administration's and congress's efforts to deal with the tech bubble and the effects of the war on the market by slashing rates beyond reason. The market was a mess and money was cheap and needed a place to go so it found it's way into housing. When you couple that with companies whose boards lack any ethics it was a disaster waiting to happen. Personaly I am really confused about how to correct this. I despise government over-regulation but, as long as our currencies are a sham I don't see another way out.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
-
To his credit, Mr. Bush accurately foresaw the danger posed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and began calling as early as 2002 for greater regulation. [^]
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
To his credit, Mr. Bush accurately foresaw the danger posed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and began calling as early as 2002 for greater regulation.
Second sentence, same paragraph: "But experts say the administration could have done even more to curb excesses in the housing market, and much more to police Wall Street, which transmitted those problems around the world." I don't understand why you are wasting your time defending Bush. Surely you have something more important to do, like sort socks.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Are you saying that banks were forced to make these loans? They HAD TO? By law??? BS.
It isn't BS, banks that did not make such loans were not allowed to grow in the communities that they were serving.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
They profited from them so they stuck their necks out.
They came up with a plan, with the help of fannie mae, etc, to make a profit from what would otherwise have been taken directly out of their bottom line. But making a profit is precisely what banks are supposed to do, otherwise, no interests on your savings. None of this would have been possible without the existence of fannie mae.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
The banks did not have to make those loans. They profited from them so they stuck their necks out. They should pay for it. Not taxpayers. That's all I'm saying. Take billions of dollars from the taxpayers and give it to the banks for making bad decisions. Talk about redistributing wealth.
I agree completely. But if they don't, the economy melts down completely taking all our jobs and all our homes with it. I would even prefer that if it would put a stop to this vile system. But no politcian is ever going to voluntarily do that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It isn't BS, banks that did not make such loans were not allowed to grow in the communities that they were serving.
No Stan, it is BS. These banks knew the risks and lied they took a calculated risk and now they deserve to pay for their lack knowledge of recent history. .... On second thought perhaps the knew well that the taxpayers would bail them out just as we bailed out the POS airlines, the savings and loans, Chrysler and will soon have to bail out ford.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
-
Oakman wrote:
The "real culprits" are everyone that has been part of this mess and who had any power to stop it from happening. No exceptions.
There are specific culprits - and unless we identify them we cannot hope to fix the problem that caused all this. Should Bush and the republicans have done far more to avert all this? Absolutely. But there was constant opposition from the left to any kind of real fix (just as there is for the coming social security meltdown) and there was no courage from any politician to risk what would have been extremely unpopular legislation before the real crisis was upon us. I would be more than happy to support throwing all of these assholes out by whatever means possible. But I am not going to help sugar coat what is a clear cut case of the failure of leftist centralized planning. We conservatives were correct. We have always been correct. The only possible change that will fix all of this is an immediate abandonment of every political principles integrated into our government since the 1930's. The New Deal and the Great Society and all related legislation should be ripped out by the roots. If you are not for that than stop complaining about Bush and what the republicans did or did not do, because you are most certainly as much a part of the problem as they are.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Are you saying that banks were forced to make these loans? They HAD TO? By law??? BS.
It isn't BS, banks that did not make such loans were not allowed to grow in the communities that they were serving.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
They profited from them so they stuck their necks out.
They came up with a plan, with the help of fannie mae, etc, to make a profit from what would otherwise have been taken directly out of their bottom line. But making a profit is precisely what banks are supposed to do, otherwise, no interests on your savings. None of this would have been possible without the existence of fannie mae.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
The banks did not have to make those loans. They profited from them so they stuck their necks out. They should pay for it. Not taxpayers. That's all I'm saying. Take billions of dollars from the taxpayers and give it to the banks for making bad decisions. Talk about redistributing wealth.
I agree completely. But if they don't, the economy melts down completely taking all our jobs and all our homes with it. I would even prefer that if it would put a stop to this vile system. But no politcian is ever going to voluntarily do that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
To his credit, Mr. Bush accurately foresaw the danger posed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and began calling as early as 2002 for greater regulation.
Second sentence, same paragraph: "But experts say the administration could have done even more to curb excesses in the housing market, and much more to police Wall Street, which transmitted those problems around the world." I don't understand why you are wasting your time defending Bush. Surely you have something more important to do, like sort socks.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
It seems to me that everybody has forgotten the fact that these sub-prime mortgages were only part of the problem. Another part of the problem was "short selling" where an even larger sum of money, I understand, was at threat. I rather suspect that if the "short selling" and other dubious Wall Street activities were not conducted, the issue of sub-prime mortgages probably would not be receiving the amount of attention here and in the press as it is getting. (Anyhow I'm off to bed)
-
From what I understand it wasn't conservatives that forced lenders to hand out mortgages that they knew wouldn't get paid. Deregulation wasn't the issue, liberals believing everybody in America should own a home forced this. And now we want to stick government's hands into health care as well? I don't think so. Maybe after the first trillion dollar tax hike is past. X|
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Our dollars are reserved for those who create them.
That trillion isn't going to the people that did this, they already got their money. It's going to clean up the mess. Free market? Not as long as socialists are allowed in office.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
From what I understand it wasn't conservatives that forced lenders to hand out mortgages that they knew wouldn't get paid. Deregulation wasn't the issue, liberals believing everybody in America should own a home forced this. And now we want to stick government's hands into health care as well? I don't think so. Maybe after the first trillion dollar tax hike is past.
Wow. Is this coming from you or from some right-wing spin machine?
BoneSoft wrote:
Free market? Not as long as socialists are allowed in office.
Don't worry, McCain is poised to put an end to the past 8 years of socialist rule.
Q: What's the difference between a hockey mom reformer and a business-as-usual pork-barrel spending politician?
A: Lipstick
