|
Register | Forum Rules | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Bookmark & Share ![]() |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
To Obama's Failures!
![]()
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
From Washington Monthly
Quote:
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
While the Bush Administration did obviously nothing to help out the economic situation, alot of this stuff was set into motion way before he got into office. Also, Zero's spending of 2 trillion dollars while there is a massive deficit is counterproductive.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Actually, the real rich are far smarter than the so called "conservatives". They knew they were at risk and so did Obama and Congress, that's why the government bailed them out.
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Randolph-Randolph -Randolph------I really feel for you if you thing that your data is accurate. Dems and Republicans are both politicians wich means they are liars, crocks and thieves BUT seeing that is what we have to run the goverment we are stuck with picking hopefully the lesser of two evils. In the present case the biggest crooks by far are the Dems headed by the all mighty hologram known as Obama. There is a great revolution starting in the this country. Republicans have wonin bluse staes of Virginia and New Jersey. In upper state NY and independant came within a few percentage points of beating the combines dem-republican candidate. And now in Massachusetts- I know how to spell it whereas Coakley doesn't.
Yesterday in Hyannis--Teddy's home town-Scott Brown had thousands of people show up at a rally at Tommy Doyle's Pub and surrounding area. Today Miss Screwed Up Coakley arrived at the same location (no originality at all) at 10 A.M. and no one was there to greet her--no one. You see the rally was scheduled for 11:30--so she waited at the bar. The rally had less than 100 people--they lined up to shake her hand and give her thier condolences just like family and friends at a wake. Literally many, many shook her hand while they told her that they were voting for Scott Brown because of her lies and her negative campaigning. Did anyone see the article in the B oston Globe today about her highness? They originally backed her--now they can see the hand writing on the wall. The Blue Sate of Massachusetts will be changing to the color Brown. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Alot of these types of problems can be traced back to big government rather than big business.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29 Quote:
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Polls show Brown ahead of Coakley 51% to 46%. I'm getting a
![]()
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
http://mises.org/story/2963 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94031
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The Wall Street Journal would beg to differ with them... Many monumental errors and misjudgments contributed to the acute financial turmoil in which we now find ourselves. Nevertheless, the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) -- and their sponsors in Washington -- are largely to blame for our current mess. How did we get here? Let's review: In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of "affordable housing." They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion. In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse. It is important to understand that, as GSEs, Fannie and Freddie were viewed in the capital markets as government-backed buyers (a belief that has now been reduced to fact). Thus they were able to borrow as much as they wanted for the purpose of buying mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Their buying patterns and interests were followed closely in the markets. If Fannie and Freddie wanted subprime or Alt-A loans, the mortgage markets would produce them. By late 2004, Fannie and Freddie very much wanted subprime and Alt-A loans. However, their accounting had just been revealed as fraudulent, and they were under pressure from Congress to demonstrate that they deserved their considerable privileges. Among other problems, economists at the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office had begun to study them in detail, and found that -- despite their subsidized borrowing rates -- they did not significantly reduce mortgage interest rates. In the wake of Freddie's 2003 accounting scandal, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan became a powerful opponent, and began to call for stricter regulation of the GSEs and limitations on the growth of their highly profitable, but risky, retained portfolios. If they were not making mortgages cheaper and were creating risks for the taxpayers and the economy, what value were they providing? The answer was their affordable-housing mission... Last edited by CreativeMind; 01-18-2010 at 03:17 PM. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
And a lack of supervision by the Obama administration -- or rather a willingness to look the other way, so these same bullshit low income ACORN type housing loans can continue -- is already poised to fuck the markets up even more, if not cause a complete repeat of history and set us up for yet another financial meldown, as once again Obama plays partisan politics and uses his power to inflate government and its role in home buying. From the Wall Street Journal as well... The government's move to ease the limits on the securities holdings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has ignited a debate among analysts about what the companies will do with their longer leash. When the Treasury Department took over Fannie and Freddie last year, one of the requirements set for the companies required them to begin shrinking their portfolios of mortgages and related investments, which total a combined $1.5 trillion. The idea was to rein in the companies' size and growth. But last Thursday, the Obama Treasury Department quietly eased that restriction, meaning the companies now won't be forced to sell mortgages next year and instead can buy mortgages on the market, thus doing exactly the opposite of what they had been required to do. The Treasury also suspended for the next three years the $400 billion cap on the bailout subsidy that the government will offer. That could give them more flexibility to modify mortgages without worrying about taking losses. Mahesh Swaminathan, senior mortgage analyst at Credit Suisse, said the firms could use their increased capacity to purchase delinquent loans from pools of mortgage-backed securities that they guarantee. Fannie and Freddie already purchase defaulted loans as they modify them under the administration's loan-modification program, but the additional breathing room means it is now a "slam-dunk for them to speed up" purchases of delinquent loans, Mr. Swaminathan said. New accounting rules that take effect next year also could make it more cost-effective for the companies to buy out bad loans and keep them in their investment portfolios. "It's created a government-purchasing facility other than the Fed," said Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics, a research firm in Washington. Meanwhile, a Freddie spokesman said the company will continue to use its investment portfolio as "an important tool" to "keep order in the housing and housing-finance markets." A Fannie spokesman declined to comment. A Treasury official said the more generous portfolio limits were offered to avoid forcing the companies to actively sell their holdings, and they didn't intend for Fannie and Freddie to be active buyers of mortgages. Ms. Petrou said that the recent moves "make sense in a short-term way because you avoid market volatility, but the prospect of limitless aid will make it harder to extricate Fannie and Freddie from the government." "In a long-term way, it promotes nationalization of U.S. mortgage finance. We have increasingly gigantic, increasingly federal agencies eating up every mortgage out there," she said. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp...eature=related
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Actually, the Washington Monthly article is a typical puff piece that plays the numbers to reach an end conclusion that they WANTED to reach versus discussing an actual truth. For example, the article initially states this (bold accent is mine): 55% approve of the president's handling of the terrorist threat, and 62% approve of his handling of the failed Christmas-day terror plot. Looks like the Cheneys' efforts to undermine the administration fell flat. Yet then it turns around and states this: The bad news is the public remains in a deeply sour mood, and has grown increasingly impatient. Obama's numbers have dropped below the 50% threshold on the economy and health care, and the number of Americans who believe the country is on the right track is lower than it's been since February. Ouch. Well, that's a perfect example of an illogical connection. The truth is that people like the Cheneys -- as well as many other commentators -- continually harping on Obama obviously HAS had an undermining effect and DIDN'T fall flat, hence his falling approval numbers. And that's the problem here. The article is cherry picking its words and numbers VERY tightly, because if you actually read between the lines what the numbers DO reveal is that (1) people are willing to say they like Obama personally, in other words they basically think he'd be an "okay guy" if he was your neighbor... ...But that said, (2) they ALSO show that more and more people feel he's a shitty President and they'll be glad when he's out of office and IS only a neighbor who is out mowing his law, and NOT someone in office that has any kind of say over your life. In fact, as of today, Obama's approval rating stands at 50%. Which means that literally HALF of the country thinks he's doing okay and HALF of the country wishes we had a election today or a do-over for November to boot his ass out. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
See, there's a major problem with that. First of all, depending on which poll you look at, the Republican confidence number is actually higher -- in fact in most polls its only a mere point or so different than the Democrats. So the Washington Monthly... again to try and reach a predetermined conclusion about the Republicans... apparently decided to go with a low number. That said, the far far far MORE TELLING thing that they DON'T bring up is that the Tea Party movement actually has a HIGHER approval rating than BOTH parties. So that's certainly not good news for the Dems or Obama. So, it was rather convenient of the Washington Monthly to leave THAT statistic out, basically because it wanted to run a few numbers to say "See! See! Obama has numbers twice as high as the Republicans!" Which is only the more laughable when you consider that Sarah Palin now has an approval rating TIED with Obama, but I notice they conveniently left that number out TOO. And finally, I find it hysterical that the article reached the conclusion that: when it comes to assigning blame for the nation's economic woes, about twice as many fault the George W. Bush administration as do Obama's... ...When in fact a poll taken at the start of the New Year ACTUALLY found that an EQUAL number of Americans right now (roughly 47%) would rather have BUSH back in office again, to guide the economy back, as opposed to trusting Obama with handling it anymore. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|