Privatized profits and socialised losses...
-
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 -
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.
Bottom line is: what a fucking mess and taxpayer are going to pay for it, while bankers are laughing their asses off.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
banks that did not make such loans were not allowed to grow in the communities that they were serving.
Provide proof or retract.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
a United States federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services[^] The CRA directs four federal banking agencies to evaluate the extent to which banks and savings institutions are meeting local credit needs before they grant banks’ requests to expand, either by opening new branches or through mergers and acquisitions. A weak CRA record may be grounds for denial of an expansion request[^]
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.
modified on Monday, September 22, 2008 7:48 PM
-
Bottom line is: what a fucking mess and taxpayer are going to pay for it, while bankers are laughing their asses off.
Le Centriste wrote:
while bankers are laughing their asses off.
...along with all the leftists...
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
Oakman wrote:
"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."
And I've said as much myself. But the people guarding the system were the democrats.
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:
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
Sure, I'll vote for that. But first we have to keep the mob from stringing them up before we can squeeze them for all they're worth.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
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:
But why would a hybrid be any less vulnerable to precisely the same human short comings?
Regulation and the market. There is a push/pull mechanism here. The concept is equilibrium. There should be some tension from both sides such that one doesn't get too far out of hand. There needs to be some regulation that sets bounds within which the market can operate that protects the taxpayer from a situation like we have now. The problem is that when the free market is responsible for services that society depends on then we get into a co-dependent situation where when the market makes bad decisions based on greed like the current mortgage crisis the taxpayers are forced to provide the market with welfare. Which is an oxymoron to the nth degree. If the free market needs welfare its not free. I keep hearing conservatives state that this is necessary considering the alternatives. Sounds like democrats arguing for social services. Stick to your guns man. Let this fall flat on its face. We are a strong people. If we need to start over then so be it. But to argue that we need to bail out these companies from a conservative standpoint is to justify every social program any democrat has ever argued for.
I've heard more said about less.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But why would a hybrid be any less vulnerable to precisely the same human short comings?
Regulation and the market. There is a push/pull mechanism here. The concept is equilibrium. There should be some tension from both sides such that one doesn't get too far out of hand. There needs to be some regulation that sets bounds within which the market can operate that protects the taxpayer from a situation like we have now. The problem is that when the free market is responsible for services that society depends on then we get into a co-dependent situation where when the market makes bad decisions based on greed like the current mortgage crisis the taxpayers are forced to provide the market with welfare. Which is an oxymoron to the nth degree. If the free market needs welfare its not free. I keep hearing conservatives state that this is necessary considering the alternatives. Sounds like democrats arguing for social services. Stick to your guns man. Let this fall flat on its face. We are a strong people. If we need to start over then so be it. But to argue that we need to bail out these companies from a conservative standpoint is to justify every social program any democrat has ever argued for.
I've heard more said about less.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
The concept is equilibrium.
The attempt to achieve equilibrium is precisely the problem. You must either accept total control by a centralized state entitity of some kind to achieve equilibrium, which means that you are placing precisely the same trust in government bureaucrats that you are afraid to place in the hands of business people, or you must accept the ups and downs of the market that is inherent to a less regulated system. The only real question is can we trust the legal system to punish the wealthy as readily as it punishes the less wealthy. That is ultimately the only real problem in obtaining a fair system.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
But to argue that we need to bail out these companies from a conservative standpoint is to justify every social program any democrat has ever argued for.
I don't know that any conservative is arguing that. I'm not. I would be perfectly happy to see the entire system collapse and take modern civilization with it. That would certainly kill liberalism, which badly needs to happen. But no politician is going to do that. There is absolutely no one that you could possibly vote for that would. But that was the hope of the left all along. There was never any doubt that a little bit of socialism would ultimately collapse into complete socialism. That was the plan from the very beginning. There is no hybrid possible. It is one thing or the other. A house divided against itself cannot stand, it must become all of one thing or all of the other.
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.
-
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:
Deregulation wasn't the issue, liberals believing everybody in America should own a home forced this.
It's not really/merely that "liberals" believe everyone in America should own a house. Hell, that's a "conservative" goal (because those with a concrete/tangible investment in their communities [and in their own lives] tend to become more "conservative" and more socially stable). The problem is the same same problem we keep having government-sponsored crisis after government-sponsored crisis -- "liberals" aren't at all concerned with whether their nostrums actually help *anyone,* much less whether they work as advertised; looking into that doesn't even enter the picture. "Liberal" policies aren't about *helping* "the disadvantaged;" "liberal" policies are always and entirely about demonstrating what morally superior persons "liberals" are. And about doing it on someone else's dime.
-
Sure, I'll vote for that. But first we have to keep the mob from stringing them up before we can squeeze them for all they're worth.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
But first we have to keep the mob from stringing them up before we can squeeze them for all they're worth.
How about we invite 1:10 to be guest of honor at a necktie party? That should be enough to have a nice celebration and still leave a workfoce.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
"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."
And I've said as much myself. But the people guarding the system were the democrats.
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:
But the people guarding the system were the democrats.
Neither Paulson nor Bernake are Democrats. Bush is not a Democrat. You're as bad as the pisants in Congress with you finger-pointing.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
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.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
while bankers are laughing their asses off.
...along with all the leftists...
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:
...along with all the leftists...
Like a jack-in-the-box, you pop up with your idiotic desire to absolve Bush and his administration in every sub thread. You contribute about as much to this conversation as Adnan would. Have you got anything worth saying or is it all variations on "the liberals did it, mommy."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
a United States federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services[^] The CRA directs four federal banking agencies to evaluate the extent to which banks and savings institutions are meeting local credit needs before they grant banks’ requests to expand, either by opening new branches or through mergers and acquisitions. A weak CRA record may be grounds for denial of an expansion request[^]
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.
modified on Monday, September 22, 2008 7:48 PM
-
Le Centriste wrote:
while bankers are laughing their asses off.
...along with all the leftists...
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:
...along with all the leftists...
And the self-superior cynical lying asses, like DryRot. edit: Trying to open the eyes of these willfully blind lefties is important ... though thankless and quite unlikely to succeed because they don't *want* to see reality as it really is. I don't have the patience to try this (I have no patience for dealing with lies and liars), and since *they* will never thank you for attempting to open their eyes, please accept my expression of gratitude.
