T1B

KC Scott wrote:You must be confused, Dio.
You assume yourself worthy to be read?

KC Scott wrote:You of course must know in the heirarchy of the board you are ranked below Jessfro and Paul and just above Irie, m2 and PiKKKle.

KC Scott wrote:You have been banned for being banal -

KC Scott wrote:Truly you own only a legacy of ignorance and mediocrity.

88 wrote:
Why is it big business's fault that the government established a program to encourage big business to make loans to people that big business would not otherwise lend to?

Fannie's Next Big Adventure
Piling a guarantee on a guarantee on . . .


Step right up, taxpayer, because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a new deal for you. And don't worry—it will make housing more affordable and won't cost a dime. (Pardon us if you've heard this one before.)

Fan and Fred's latest excellent adventure is intended to help independent mortgage lenders that have been hard hit in the wake of the financial panic. These smaller players have seen their costs of capital rise and access to capital shrink. They never benefited like the big boys from bailout cash from Uncle Sam or the implicit backing of a too-big-to-fail guarantee. As a result, the three biggest U.S. mortgage lenders—Wells Fargo, Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase—now make more than half of all new home loans in the country.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve and now government-run Fannie and Freddie have been pushing mortgage rates down in a bid to buoy the housing market. These artificially low rates in turn have lowered the rate at which it's economical for a lender to borrow money to make home loans; this has also increased the squeeze on independent mortgage shops.

Thus the latest Fannie brainstorm: Launch a program to guarantee the short-term debt of these small mortgage lenders, provided they use the money to make mortgages approved by Fan and Fred. Keep in mind that Fan and Fred already guarantee the mortgages themselves. So this new program would pile another taxpayer liability on top of that one by guaranteeing the short-term debt of independent mortgage companies, too.

Now, some might say that in a world in which more than 90% of all mortgages are already taxpayer guaranteed, this is no big deal. If you insure the mortgage product, why not insure the lenders who created it too? Yet by that logic, the taxpayers might as well cut out the middle men and simply nationalize the entire mortgage industry. (On second thought, forget we mentioned that.)

Our point is that piling mortgage guarantee upon guarantee is going in precisely the wrong policy direction. If we are ever going to return to a private mortgage market, the feds need to begin to roll back their guarantees and market share. Yet the more guarantees that are made, the harder it will be to withdraw. This may be precisely what Fannie and Freddie and their Congressional patrons want, since these new guarantees will make it that much harder to reform them and reduce their sway in the housing market.

This also shows how one policy mistake typically begets another. Fannie and Freddie's guarantees and subsidies helped to create the housing disaster, which has led the Fed directly to purchase mortgage-backed securities and mess up the market for small mortgage lenders, which in turn is leading Fan and Fred to guarantee the debt of those small lenders. Market distortion is piled on market distortion until we have a mortgage industry that can't function without taxpayers being on the hook for every transaction.

The Chinese must look at all this and wonder why the crazy Americans think they can give anyone advice about how to run a market economy.

88 wrote:There are many who share the blame of this collapse. The government. The lenders. The borrowers. Even folks like me and IF, who have benefited from reduced interest rates and the ability to engage in business activities that, but for the easy capital climate, we would never have been able to afford.

88 wrote:If a robber gives some of his loot to someone he deems to be needy, it does not justify his theft or make it moral.

Martyred wrote:

88 wrote:If a robber gives some of his loot to someone he deems to be needy, it does not justify his theft or make it moral.

Why do you hate Israel?


Never again, you racist hate-monger. You're worse than Hitler.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:...are you actually defending Phil Gramm's evangelical dismantling of the Glass- Steagall act?

"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."

88 wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The slimeball actions and evasions of Bubba aside, as well as the shameless acquiescence of the bought and paid for congress, do you support the dismantling of this crucial legislation? Why?

As for the bad loans, guess what? The banks knew full well most would default--and they welcomed this because they ended up having their BEST YEAR ever. You seem to be blithely unaware--or actually supporting!--the rapacious and utterly horrific transfer of wealth to a tiny percentage of corporate/banking interests that has attended this economic clusterfuck. You seem to be a complete traitor, in other words, to the basic principles and values of American democracy. The fact that you're a cheap racist is irrelevant because the vast majority of victims in this gigantic swindle are working class white folks who have worked hard all their lives. How do you look in the mirror?

[adjusting tin foil hat]If what you say is true[/adjusting tin foil hat], you have to give props to those who managed to pull off this scam. See, they suckered the First Black President to sign legislation, that they got 90 senators to approve, that would eliminate certain regulations that permitted them to engage in all kinds of risky stuff ostensibly to help the downtrodden obtain property that, without the help of Big Brother, they could never hope to obtain. Once they got this giant scam rolling, they were able to siphon money out of the economy at an enormous clip, sufficient to effectuate a "transfer of wealth to a tiny percentage of corporate/banking interests" heretofore unseen. And they did that all to the expense of the working class white folks. As horrible as that proposition is, you have to tip your cap to them and say "Nice one." [adjusting tin foil hat]Or am I missing something?[/adjusting tin foil hat]

Diogenes wrote: The Jews are quite crafty.

88 wrote:Don't you think its time you at least acknowledge that you're in a game with a pro that is making you his man-bitch?

88 wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What's the "tin foil hat" business supposed to mean? Are you drunk? Look, all of the swindling and shameless greed went down in the previous eight years (and yes, in Bubba's fetid administration as well), but your idiotic assertion that Barry and his handlers pulled this off is really beneath comment. Of course we're all shocked at the degree to which he appears completely beholden to the banking interests (with Geitner providing Wall St. a hot line to the white house) but no, of course we don't tip our hats to grotesquely immoral thieves. Do you? First of all, it's not a smooth scheme at all because the whole world knows they're crooks. They've destroyed any faith in bankers, Wall St., insurance companies--in short, these rapacious bandits have screwed it up for all actual smooth operating crooks. I mean, really, if Madoff succeeded so long because the SEC was basically compliant, and if the whole congress is bought and paid for to allow the looting of America's entire middle class, well what's to admire?

Now, why does this suggest a "tin foil hat" again? You suggest this without anything to back it up. As usual.

When a warrior goes into battle and loses, he gains respect for his adversary. That's all I'm talking 'bout. You go to battle with "corporatism", "capitalism", "W-ism", "Zio-nazi-neo-conism" and the like and they always get over on you. Don't you think its time you at least acknowledge that you're in a game with a pro that is making you his man-bitch? If this was a boxing match, they would have long thrown in a towel from your corner. Instead, you just get plunger-raped over and over and over and over, then make a few posters and lead a march that that no one watches or cares about and declare victory, while the MAN takes more of your money and power. Hell, you managed to elect Mr. Obama, and somehow the MAN got to him too. Seriously. When are you going to give your adversary due props? That's all I'm sayin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Ziodog, if those Jews whose theories and actions have lead directly to the present economic catastrophe are so clever, how come their scheme has proven utterly disastrous?

88 wrote:C'mon, Nick. Either your adversaries are playing the world like Joshua Bell plays a Stradivarius, or they are just wicked lucky. If it is the former, then you must pay respect to their ability to get over notwithstanding your vigilance. If it is the latter, then that is one incredible lucky streak. When do you get to celebrate a victory? Even a small one.

Diogenes wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Ziodog, if those Jews whose theories and actions have lead directly to the present economic catastrophe are so clever, how come their scheme has proven utterly disastrous?

You forgot Saul Alinsky.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Ziodog, if those Jews whose theories and actions have lead directly to the present economic catastrophe are so clever, how come their scheme has proven utterly disastrous?

You forgot Saul Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky was just one man--but he was all the way on my side, not yours!

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Such selfishness is a small boat indeed!

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Well, 88, that's certainly the "strict constructionalist" credo/manifesto...but...you're very short on specifics, 'cept for demanding access to guns. I've said nothing about the government's role, but let me be clear: the role of government is to serve the people. And first and foremost that means protecting the people--against rapacious corporate interests, for starters.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:A corporation is only dangerous and unethical when it achieves a trans-national bearing protected by full rights of a person

LTS TRN 2 wrote: As for the military industrial complex, are you kidding? Have you done any research on just how vast and costly this monstrosity has become? Of course the world--and especially the U.S.--would be tremendously served by a quantum reduction in our military character. After all, it's proven disastrous since Ike warned us about it. Or what...can you name a single war we've won?

88 wrote:Does Coca-Cola train guns on its customers and order them to drink sugar water? Or, does the consuming public worldwide find sugar water so refreshing that it is willing to shell out hard earned coin to get it? Are you advocating that government put a "Acceptable Products Czar" in place to dictate what products can be sold and what cannot?

You mention Coca-Cola GmbH. That is/was a German corporation. And I suspect that in Germany during the 1930's and 1940's, it would be very good for business to be in the good graces of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka Nazi's). It might just help you sell some soft drinks. Coke makes the world sing in perfect harmony, dog.

What do you want companies that sell soft drinks to do differently?

88 wrote: Someone ought to do a study on the investment/return scenario going on there. Why is it that the city of East Cleveland spends $13,294 per pupil but graduates 58% percent of its students (which kicks ass on Cleveland, proper's 48%). The average per pupil spending in Ohio is $8,750.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The problem with your idiotic notion of testing the obvious is that we can't find a school that's not saturated in soft drinks and junk food. Everyone's fat and wheezing, short of attention span and feeling anxious, etc. It's across the board. And why? Because Coca Cola has succeeded in installing itself inside schools by way of lucrative contracts--cash strapped schools allow several soda machines in the school, etc. And their aggressive pursuit of underwriting major sporting events has produced similar disastrous results. Look at the next ten fatsos you see...and ask your self honestly if these folks wouldn't e better off without soft drinks and junk food. Okay. Now consider how the tremendous amount of unhealthy people are in fact impacting your state's economy. It's all connected, and it's costing you plenty!

You're an idiot, 88, and a disgrace to bunkered Libertarian Survivalists everywhere. And the worst part is that you somehow feel an allegiance to these rapacious corporations--as though they're your friend! :doh:

88 wrote: If I hit myself on the head with a hammer, does that make Sears an evil corporation?