RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DesideriScuri -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/17/2012 6:19:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
No offense Desidrei....but I don't think Bush EVER asked for an audit.
not that it would have actually happened had he done so but....that one escapes me as to history.


Know what? You're right. He didn't ask for an audit, just for reform and more regulations of Fannie and Freddie.

And, no offense taken. [:D]




cloudboy -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/17/2012 6:20:10 AM)

quote:

S&L crisis


The S&L crisis happened because inflation pushed the cost of money over and above long term interest rates, threatening the existence of S&L's. Congress then expanded S&L lending powers, upped deposit insurance from $40K to $100K per deposit, and exercised less oversight of S&L lending practices. There was also corruption between the S&L's and congress.

Like any insurance entity (the US GOV) in this case, the insurer needs to have oversight over and transparency from the insured. This is really not a free market question, its an insurance oversight question.

Banks want to be insured, but they don't want to be told how to lend out their money, how much to be kept in reserve, etc. In making the argument, they buy politicians off who deregulate them under the guise of "the free market" and the "American way."




Owner59 -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/17/2012 7:13:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
No offense Desidrei....but I don't think Bush EVER asked for an audit.
not that it would have actually happened had he done so but....that one escapes me as to history.


Know what? You're right. He didn't ask for an audit, just for reform and more regulations of Fannie and Freddie.

And, no offense taken. [:D]

I call bush-shit.....err, bullshit....

Please show us where he called for any of that.

What was the reaction from republicans when attempts were made to curb predatory lending or sub-prime mortgage abuses....?

Funny that bush had a whole eight years to do something to help but did nothing but deregulate bank rules and/or gutting the oversight agencies to the point of neutering them.

In all the hearings after the crash......Fannie and Fredie weren`t blamed by Greenspan or even mentioned. The cons have scapegoated them and has placed the entire financial failure on them to escape their own guilt for leading us into the crash.



AIG,JP Morgan Chase,Citibank,Bear Stearns,Lehman Brothers,BofA,Merrill Lynch etc.....the banks that failed....had NOTHING to do with Freddie or Fannie.



Freddie and Fannies` failure did NOT bring down 39 other major banks....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_acquired_or_bankrupted_during_the_2007%E2%80%932012_global_financial_crisis

Greenspan admits he and Ayn Rand, were wrong....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGYtnW_1lUU


"The Federal Reserve chairman — an economist and a disciple of libertarian icon Ayn Rand — met his first major challenge in office by preventing the 1987 stock-market crash from spiraling into something much worse. Then, in the 1990s, he presided over a long economic and financial-market boom and attained the status of Washington's resident wizard. But the super-low interest rates Greenspan brought in the early 2000s and his long-standing disdain for regulation are now held up as leading causes of the mortgage crisis. The maestro admitted in an October congressional hearing that he had "made a mistake in presuming" that financial firms could regulate themselves."

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877331,00.html #ixzz23oQbVoyw



Credit default swaps,risky speculative investing with money that wasn`t their`s, predatory lending abuses and SECRET, INSIDE, BANK TO BANK transactions by PRIVATE BANKS, are what brought down the system.


The attempt to place it all on Freddie and Fannie are because the cons need a scapegoat and have always wanted to get rid of them anyway.






DesideriScuri -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/17/2012 12:40:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
quote:

S&L crisis

The S&L crisis happened because inflation pushed the cost of money over and above long term interest rates, threatening the existence of S&L's. Congress then expanded S&L lending powers, upped deposit insurance from $40K to $100K per deposit, and exercised less oversight of S&L lending practices. There was also corruption between the S&L's and congress.t
Like any insurance entity (the US GOV) in this case, the insurer needs to have oversight over and transparency from the insured. This is really not a free market question, its an insurance oversight question.
Banks want to be insured, but they don't want to be told how to lend out their money, how much to be kept in reserve, etc. In making the argument, they buy politicians off who deregulate them under the guise of "the free market" and the "American way."


You're not quite right there. Inflation pushed the cost of money over the long term interest rates. That is fact. But, why? Why didn't this affect banks the same way? Answer: Because there was a regulation as to how much a S&L could offer on savings, which was where they got their capital to fraction and lend. Banks didn't have a cap on that interest rate, so they were able to offer higher rates on savings, getting the capital to continue to loan. Congress, after lobbying by the S&L's relaxed that standard and expanded what S&L's were allowed to offer, loan-wise. Since they didn't change the regulations on banks to include S&L's, there was under-regulation. S&L's started whoring their loans out and went overboard, much like a kid who gets locked in a candy store overnight. When Congress finally got wind of the precarious position S&L's were in, they clamped regulations back on similar to what they were prior to lifting the interest rate cap. Instead of allowing the S&L's to divest themselves of the assets they were now no longer allowed to have, Congress forced a fire sale of those assets. Fire Sales being what they are, S&L's no longer had the reserve capital requirements and the whole system failed.

Make no mistake about it, the S&L crisis was caused primarily by government intervention, starting with interest rate caps.




mnottertail -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/17/2012 12:50:10 PM)

No, Glass Stegall.   Regulation is what kept the banks from doing it.   That lifted they went the way of S&Ls as they were deregulated. So the relaxation (relaxation my ass, deregulation) of regulation (to prevent just these sorts of things that had their roots in fixing the failings of irrational exuberance in the great depression led to 

... started whoring their loans out and went overboard, much like a kid who gets locked in a candy store overnight....




DesideriScuri -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/17/2012 1:05:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
No offense Desidrei....but I don't think Bush EVER asked for an audit.
not that it would have actually happened had he done so but....that one escapes me as to history.

Know what? You're right. He didn't ask for an audit, just for reform and more regulations of Fannie and Freddie.
And, no offense taken. [:D]

I call bush-shit.....err, bullshit....
Please show us where he called for any of that.
What was the reaction from republicans when attempts were made to curb predatory lending or sub-prime mortgage abuses....?
Funny that bush had a whole eight years to do something to help but did nothing but deregulate bank rules and/or gutting the oversight agencies to the point of neutering them.
In all the hearings after the crash......Fannie and Fredie weren`t blamed by Greenspan or even mentioned. The cons have scapegoated them and has placed the entire financial failure on them to escape their own guilt for leading us into the crash.


http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warned-congress-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone/

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-01-27-financial-crisis-report_N.htm

    quote:

    Some say its impact will be muted because it was not supported by Republican members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Others say much of the ground it covers was hashed out in previous hearings or reports.
    The report is flawed, critics say. After more than a year of analysis costing $10 million, the 10-member Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission could not agree fully on the factors behind the crisis, issuing three different versions of the story told along partisan lines.


Yep, party lines were drawn...

quote:

"The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand, and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public," the nearly 600-page report says.
As a result of the crisis, the nation fell into the deepest economic slump in 70 years, sending millions into unemployment and costing taxpayers trillions.
The financial crisis was fueled by low interest rates and a booming housing market. As the subprime mortgage market boomed, so did demand for packages of risky mortgage-backed securities. Lenders eagerly made high-risk, subprime loans and sold them into the burgeoning mortgage-backed securities market. When the housing bubble burst, the value of mortgage-backed securities tumbled, taking down some of the nation's biggest financial firms: Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide Financial and Lehman Bros., among others.
...
The report says industry and government players at every layer of the financial system saw brightly flashing warning signs at every turn but chose to ignore or downplay them. The commission singles out the Federal Reserve as "the one entity" that could have stemmed the flow of toxic mortgages but failed to do so.
Although the Federal Reserve held hearings on predatory mortgages as early as 2000, it failed to follow through on proposals to require lenders to verify that borrowers could repay their mortgages.
"We want to encourage the growth in the subprime lending market," Fed Governor Edward Gramlich said in early 2004.
Fed General Counsel Scott Alvarez told the commission: "There was concern that if you put a broad rule, you would stop things that were not unfair and deceptive." Ultimately, the Fed toughened its rules in 2002 but only modestly.
Mortgage lenders were aware of the dangers. In 2004 and 2005, Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo e-mailed senior managers that subprime loans could bring "financial and reputational catastrophe" to the company. But that didn't stop Countrywide.
Financial giants, meanwhile, were snapping up the loans and packaging them into securities, despite the risks, to keep pace with rivals. "A decision was made that we're going to have to hold our nose and start buying the stated product if we want to stay in business," Citigroup banker Richard Bowen told the commission.
American International Group, which sold investors derivatives known as credit default swaps — insurance in case the mortgage securities defaulted — was similarly worried about impending doom. Former AIG CEO Maurice Greenberg told the commission that when the firm lost its AAA rating for the swaps in spring 2005, "it would have been logical for AIG to have exited or reduced its business." Instead, the company issued another $36 billion in credit default swaps.
Government-backed mortgage giant Fannie Mae was on a mission to perk up profits. As early as 2005, Thomas Lund, Fannie's head of single-family lending, told colleagues that risk had "accelerated dramatically." Yet, the firm widened its exposure to risky mortgages to compete.
The commission, in fact, concluded that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "followed rather than led Wall Street" and so were not a "primary cause" of the crisis. That contradicts the view of some economists and Republican lawmakers who blame the giants, which bought the lion's share of mortgages and were placed in a federal conservatorship in 2008.


So, a majority Democrat commission agreed (all the Republican's disagreed in part) with a report that included Fannie and Freddie as part of the problem, but not a primary cause.

Get a shovel to clean up your bullshit.




SternSkipper -> RE: everybody : New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/17/2012 1:53:00 PM)

quote:

Heres an interesting, little known, barely reported fact

Financial Fraud Convictions: Bush 1300 , Clinton 1000 , Obama 0 attempts



Yeah Gee .. your "interesting fact" would be an "interesting fact" were it not pure bullshit.... Oddly, the FBI begs to differ with your American "thinker" Why just in the area of sub-prime Mortgage fraud alone the numbers tower over your intellectual mentor's claim... sure that guy's site shouldn't be RightWingStinker?

Just the Facts: Mortgage Fraud Statisticsline-
Estimated Annual Losses: $10 billion-plus (Source: Corelogic)-
Total Suspicious Activity Reports in FY 2011: 93,508 with more than $3 billion in losses- FBI Mortgage Fraud Task Forces/Working Groups: 92-
Pending Investigations (through 12/31/11): 2,590 with 71 percent involving losses of more than $1 million-
Cases opened in FY 2011 (as of 2/28/2011): 245Cases opened in FY 2011: 599- Successes in FY 2011: 1,220 indictments/informations; 1,089 convictions-
States with Significant Mortgage Fraud Problems in 2010: Florida, New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and Illinois (Source: Mortgage Asset Research Institute)


Oh, and then there's Syracuse University. CRAZY! They seem To Disagree Too!

And ya know... to have convictions, you gotta have Prosecutions... whatchya we try one last time to vindicate your infallible source...
[image]http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/267/include/timeline.png[/image]
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/267/

Nope ... BUST AGAIN ... Bummer.

Perhaps if I'd searched just bogus right wing sources with agendas... maybe then I could have been of some help.

I'd suggest you correct your great thinker but Awww Geez he doesn't allow comments. Guess he doesn't want to be told he's as full of shit as those who quote him instead of searching for real answers.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/17/2012 3:46:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and what is really pathetic about the whole affair that was underwritten by W and the republicans is that these few shakily financial black people who got loans from the W affordable housing act after glass-stegal repeal so that the unregulated banks could derive and repackage them as high grade toxic financials brought every betting parlour on wall street and other unregulated banking systems to its knees, world wide because there was no serious inflation on the adjustable rate mortages which in the initial widespread dump went foreclosure with the AVERAGE loan origination of 3 years, still inside the W administration.

  


It wasn't just blacks. It was predominantly blacks...but it wasn't just blacks.



Any chance of a link or is this more nonsense ?


Newp...you're a grown up...you can find this stuff all on your own (I believe in you).




tazzygirl -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/17/2012 5:49:19 PM)

~FR ~FR ~FR ~FR ~FR ~FR ~FR ~FR ~FR ~FR ~FR ~FR ~FR ~FR ~FR


It all started when Mr. Biden, addressing a predominantly African American crowd, quoted Mr. Romney as saying in his first 100 days as president that "he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules -- unchain Wall Street." Then the vice president added with a grin: "They're going to put y'all back in chains!"

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-witcover-biden-20120817,0,1692517.story

Joe Biden in Danville Virginia (Majority Black City) to majority black crowd – Republicans Will Put y’all Back In Chains (Video)

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/08/14/joe-biden-in-danville-virginia-majority-black-city-republicans-will-put-people-back-in-chains-video/

The remark came roughly two-thirds of the way through Mr. Biden’s 30-minute speech, which was delivered to a crowd that included many African-Americans at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research in Danville, Va.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/biden-warns-romney-policies-would-put-crowd-back-in-chains/

Vice President Joe Biden may have made the gaffe of the campaign so far. While speaking Tuesday morning in Danville, Virginia, the vice president said to an audience with a clear population of minorities that Romney and the Republicans want to put people “back in chains.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/biden-to-audience-filled-with-black-people-romney-is-gonna-put-yall-back-in-chains/

Addressing a crowd that included hundreds of black people, Biden said Romney wants to get rid of new Wall Street regulations Obama signed into law after the 2008 financial collapse.

http://www.vosizneias.com/111751/2012/08/14/biden-to-southern-audience-romney-financial-plan-would-put-yall-back-in-chains

quote:

Now there are only a handful of people who might be angered by that comment: recovering masochists, inmates, POWs ... and African-Americans. Forty-eight percent of Danville’s population is black, and the audience that day reflected that demographic. You know darn good and well you can’t reference chains in a room full of black folks. Come on now, Joe. Talk about open mouth, insert foot. (And incidentally, they’re called “coffles.”)


http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/142063/joe_bidens_back_in_chains

Its a shame I had to go through all that to find the demographic, as well as the possible make up of the crowd that day.

Oh, btw, for those who are truly color blind, dont assume because someone "looks" white, or "looks" black they will identify as such. I mean, really, dont we have better things to argue about than how many black people are in a crowd and who may or may not have been insulted by a comment?

Seriously... I cant find a single black organization coming out against this speech.... maybe I over looked that fact. I have seen mons declare her position... and rather clearly.

Or do we have just a group of white people insisting how black people should have taken a comment?

Hard to call any of you white... I wouldnt know what most of you are... with as much mixing and mingling of races as we have (thankfully) I fully expect racial issues to be a thing of the past within the next 100 years. Its a shame that a bunch of supposedly grown adults cannot seem to get past the issue of race now.. but there you have it.




Sanity -> RE: everybody : New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/17/2012 10:19:16 PM)


You are confusing Financial Institution Fraud, or fraud by individuals against financial institutions, with financial crimes committed by the bankers themselves, and by wall street institutions

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

Heres an interesting, little known, barely reported fact

Financial Fraud Convictions: Bush 1300 , Clinton 1000 , Obama 0 attempts



Yeah Gee .. your "interesting fact" would be an "interesting fact" were it not pure bullshit.... Oddly, the FBI begs to differ with your American "thinker" Why just in the area of sub-prime Mortgage fraud alone the numbers tower over your intellectual mentor's claim... sure that guy's site shouldn't be RightWingStinker?

Just the Facts: Mortgage Fraud Statisticsline-
Estimated Annual Losses: $10 billion-plus (Source: Corelogic)-
Total Suspicious Activity Reports in FY 2011: 93,508 with more than $3 billion in losses- FBI Mortgage Fraud Task Forces/Working Groups: 92-
Pending Investigations (through 12/31/11): 2,590 with 71 percent involving losses of more than $1 million-
Cases opened in FY 2011 (as of 2/28/2011): 245Cases opened in FY 2011: 599- Successes in FY 2011: 1,220 indictments/informations; 1,089 convictions-
States with Significant Mortgage Fraud Problems in 2010: Florida, New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and Illinois (Source: Mortgage Asset Research Institute)


Oh, and then there's Syracuse University. CRAZY! They seem To Disagree Too!

And ya know... to have convictions, you gotta have Prosecutions... whatchya we try one last time to vindicate your infallible source...
[image]http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/267/include/timeline.png[/image]
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/267/

Nope ... BUST AGAIN ... Bummer.

Perhaps if I'd searched just bogus right wing sources with agendas... maybe then I could have been of some help.

I'd suggest you correct your great thinker but Awww Geez he doesn't allow comments. Guess he doesn't want to be told he's as full of shit as those who quote him instead of searching for real answers.






Politesub53 -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/18/2012 4:37:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

Newp...you're a grown up...you can find this stuff all on your own (I believe in you).



Your claim remains standard racist bullshit then.




Sanity -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/21/2012 3:54:19 PM)


FR -

More of the Obama Administrations "New Tone"

Biden Likens Republicans to 'Squealing Pigs'




mnottertail -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/21/2012 4:03:40 PM)

I wouldn't have said it that way, but its apt.

I would have said flouncing around like peri-menopausal drag queens in the highest dudgeon, hysterically screaming and shitting their pants and crying wolf, and the sky is falling, ad nauseam, and wondering why they are irrelevant.

But I possess a better turn of phrase than Ol' Joe.




Musicmystery -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/21/2012 5:06:48 PM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gLN3QoN-q8




mnottertail -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/21/2012 5:21:37 PM)

the ads should fade in with foggy mountain breakdown........just the artist in me, I guess.




Musicmystery -> RE: New Lows For The Obama Campaign (8/21/2012 6:26:57 PM)

Collarme really needs a "like" button




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875