Barack Obama

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Most people would agree that we had to save the big banks. If we didn't, full economic collapse would have made the great depression look like a minor recession.

Alot of the banks failures was due to government intervention and the formation of things like the Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to give out loans to people with spotty credit history and could not pay back the money. That was instituted when Carter was in office and the cumulative effects of that legislation have just recently emerged.

Alot of these types of problems can be traced back to big government rather than big business.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Alot of the banks failures was due to government intervention and the formation of things like the Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to give out loans to people with spotty credit history and could not pay back the money. That was instituted when Carter was in office and the cumulative effects of that legislation have just recently emerged.

Alot of these types of problems can be traced back to big government rather than big business.

From Businessweek.

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29

Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we?re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act ? a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it?s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren?t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: ?In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.?

Lack of supervision fostered by the Bush administration was a major factor in the meltdown.

[TracyCoxx]

Polls show Brown ahead of Coakley 51% to 46%. I'm getting a

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Polls show Brown ahead of Coakley 51% to 46%. I'm getting a

Careful sweety, you might cum too soon.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Careful sweety, you might cum too soon.

I just came all over myself. HAHAHA I knew 2010 was going to be a good year One down, 36 more to go this year.

With Massachusetts being one of the bluest states with democrats outnumbering republicans 3 to one, it makes you progressives here wonder just how far left you are doesn't it?

[franalexes]

A lot of Dem's started vomitting last night. I understand everything came up Brown.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by franalexes

A lot of Dem's started vomitting last night. I understand everything came up Brown.

Yes, the Democrats and Obama fucked up big time. They had an opportunity to reform the government and clean up the mess left by years of Republican malfeasance. Now we can watch the rich get richer and the poor get poorer as the country descends into third world status.

[CCC]

Originally Posted by franalexes

A lot of Dem's started vomitting last night. I understand everything came up Brown.

Shall we start keeping track of every state that goes from BLUE to RED and relabel them BROWN?

Just watched Pelosi talking---she looks like she is having a nervous breakdown.

And OBAMA the idiot--says Mass went for Brown because they are still pissed at Bush---that just proves he is an idiot.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

Lack of supervision fostered by the Bush administration was a major factor in the meltdown.

Haha! Good luck believing that!

http://mises.org/story/2963

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94031

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Haha! Good luck believing that!

http://mises.org/story/2963

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94031

It is the mission of the Mises Institute to place human choice at the center of economic theory, to encourage a revival of critical historical research, and to advance the Misesian tradition of thought through the defense of the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive.

Looks like they have a biased adjenda. The meltdown demonstrates conclusively that government intervention is necessary to regulate capitalism.

Who's Behind WorldNetDaily?
WND's board of directors has been mostly comprised of California conservatives -- plus a man on the lam for tax evasion.

By Terry Krepel
Posted 3/1/2007
Updated 3/2/2007, 7/12/2008

WorldNetDaily has been notoriously close-lipped about who its backers are. Back in 2002, ConWebWatch asked WND founder and editor Joseph Farah who owns his company and who put up the $4.5 million in startup money for it; he answered the first question (he and the Western Journalism Center he co-founded own a majority of it) but not the second.

In the face of Farah and WND refusing to offer a straight answer, we set off to find one. A ConWebWatch investigation of Delaware corporate records (WND is registered as a Delaware corporation) shows that the members of WND's board of directors -- many of whom have presumably kicked in money for the operation -- are, in contrast to Richard Mellon Scaife's backing of NewsMax, not household names; they are mostly California-based activists who quietly support conservative causes.
Related articles on ConWebWatch:
The 'O' Word
Update: Black Vox
NewsMax By the Numbers
The Masters of WorldNetDaily


The exception to those quiet, California-based traits is Robert Beale, a Minnesota-based technology firm owner who sat on the WND board of directors from 2000 to 2002. As ConWebWatch has noted, the only mentions of Beale by WND came in an April 2002 column by Farah thanking him (and many others) by name as Farah prepared to move from Oregon to the Washington area "to become more visible," and in a June 2003 article by Art Moore detailing Beale's complaint that Minnesota officials seized his $3 million, 30-room house for back taxes. Beale insisted he was not a Minnesota resident at the time and doesn't owe the taxes, but he refused to fight the seizure in state tax court because he denies its legitimacy. The end of the article states: "By way of disclosure, Robert Beale is a board member and stockholder in WorldNetDaily.com."

Beale, at one point, had a website (now defunct) that promoted Beale's case, designed by his son, Theodore Beale, who's better known to WND readers as columnist Vox Day.

Robert Beale's tax problems came to a head in August 2006, when he failed to appear for his trial on federal tax-evasion charges. He hasn't been heard from since.

So does this outfit have more credibility than Businessweek?

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

The meltdown demonstrates conclusively that government intervention is necessary to regulate capitalism.

The meltdown was a result of government intervention, not capitalism. Using beauracracy to fix the mistakes brought on by the exact same bureaucracy is a losing strategy.


http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...zYwNzkzYjc1NDI

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...down_economics

[The Conquistador]

If you're a lender you risk losing FDIC and other government services if you don't lend in a way "serves the convenience and needs" of the broke-ass, low income people in "the community that you're chartered to do business."

Clinton's big change was that he opened the gates for Fannie and Freddie to buy mortgage backed securities. Originate the loan and sell it to a private investor or if the MBS is too shitty, Fannie or Freddie would have bought it. Read up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm..._in_the_crisis

Can you really blame the banks for doing something that was profitable and given a gold stamp of approval by Uncle Sam? It became like a game of musical chairs, you knew it was going to all come crashing down at some point, but you always hoped it would be someone else who took the fall.

SEC. 802. (a) The Congress finds that--
(1) regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;
(2) the convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit services; and
(3) regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.
(b) It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.

Are the banks blameless?...Hell no, but the government holds more blame than any bank. Where did all of this start? Fannie and Freddie, the two most fucked "banks" there have ever been.

[The Conquistador]

Oh yeah. Pageflip!

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

From Businessweek:
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

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...

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

From Businessweek.
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

Lack of supervision fostered by the Bush administration was a major factor in the meltdown.

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.

[jimnaseum]

Putting Republicans back in charge is like giving Leno back the Tonight Show. There's no accounting for taste.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Putting Republicans back in charge is like giving Leno back the Tonight Show. There's no accounting for taste.

Republicans and Democrats are just two different sides of the same shit mountain.


[Insert Barf Icon Here]

[jimnaseum]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Republicans and Democrats are just two different sides of the same shit mountain.

It's a two-party system. Republican or Democrat the USA is fucked for the next decade no matter what because Bush-Cheney stole every cent they could.

If you're really into being apathetic, consider the number of years we have before THE nuclear war. Fifty? A hundred? Two Hundred? Yeah.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

It's a two-party system. Republican or Democrat the USA is fucked for the next decade no matter what because Bush-Cheney stole every cent they could.

If you're really into being apathetic, consider the number of years we have before THE nuclear war. Fifty? A hundred? Two Hundred? Yeah.

It's a multiple party system. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to vote for Ron Paul. Dems and Repubs just happen to dominate the political scene.

I'm not apathetic; I just generally tend to hate most everyone with the exception of trannies and their cohorts who enjoy their company.

[randolph]

It appears that there is a poll and post for every taste.
Obama polls vs Palin polls opinions not to waste
evidence here and evidence there bad guys everywhere
what shall we do and where shall we go
keep looking keep searching somebody will know
the answers my friend are they blowing in the wind
the winds will be strong and we will be long gone