Obama's Endgame~~~

[Good Luck]

As for your analogy if there wasn't waste paper, flammable plastics and lighter fluid a match wouldn't have caused a fire. If you are in someone's garage and there are improperly stored containers of gasoline and rags soaked with flammable liquids and you light a cigarette resulting in a fire is the fault of the fire because you lit a cigarette or because of the state of the garage?

Yes, but somehow you miss the point entirely.

You keep focusing on the sale of high risk mortgages as AAA investments. THAT IS THE SPILLED LIGHTER FLUID. The waste paper and greasy rags are the rest of it: the banking regulations that REQUIRED high risk lending, over extended federal subsidy banks extending loans far beyond their capacity, etc. (again - REGULATIONS, but bad ones with bad consequences.) A match in waste paper and flammable pastic does not NEED lighter fluid to burn the house down, yet you keep harping on the lighter fluid!

You keep labeling the lack (still not true) of regulations that allowed bad mortgages to be resold as the proof of failure of free market. The fact is, without the rest of it the sale of mortgages repackaged as AAA investments would have made LITTLE DIFFERENCE!! That action did NOT cause the collapse. The collapse was caused by the banks making the bad mortgages in the first place, and those bad mortgages were made BECAUSE of banking regulations REQUIRING lending in high risk areas.

Even without the investment aspect, loan defaults still would have taken out the banks (think about it: they SOLD a bunch of the bad loans, yet bad loans STILL took them down!!) Even without the investment aspect, the housing industry still would have taken as hard a hit as it did, resulting in the loss of construction jobs as well as jobs in related industries, etc. The collapse would have still taken the rest of the stock market down.

Conversely, even WITH the investment component, if the banks were not required to make those high risk loans the number of mortgage defaults would not have ballooned like they did, the banks would not have taken a hit from those defaults, the financial insurance companies would not have gone broke covering bad assets, and the whole crisis NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!!

Bottom line: the claim that the banking crisis is the result of "free market" failing is absolutely false. It was banking regulations that forced high risk mortgage lending. It was high risk mortgages that ended in vastly increased loan defaults. It was the vastly increased loan defaults that resulted in losses that could not be covered by other income sources, which in turn led to banks failing, and the domino effect on the rest of the economy. The CAUSE was bad regulations, not lack of them.

 

[Good Luck]

When people start calling international corporations "communist", the level of ignorance isn't worth addressing.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, but somehow you miss the point entirely.

You keep focusing on the sale of high risk mortgages as AAA investments. THAT IS THE SPILLED LIGHTER FLUID. The waste paper and greasy rags are the rest of it: the banking regulations that REQUIRED high risk lending, over extended federal subsidy banks extending loans far beyond their capacity, etc. (again - REGULATIONS, but bad ones with bad consequences.) A match in waste paper and flammable pastic does not NEED lighter fluid to burn the house down, yet you keep harping on the lighter fluid!

You keep labeling the lack (still not true) of regulations that allowed bad mortgages to be resold as the proof of failure of free market. The fact is, without the rest of it the sale of mortgages repackaged as AAA investments would have made LITTLE DIFFERENCE!! That action did NOT cause the collapse. The collapse was caused by the banks making the bad mortgages in the first place, and those bad mortgages were made BECAUSE of banking regulations REQUIRING lending in high risk areas.

Even without the investment aspect, loan defaults still would have taken out the banks (think about it: they SOLD a bunch of the bad loans, yet bad loans STILL took them down!!) Even without the investment aspect, the housing industry still would have taken as hard a hit as it did, resulting in the loss of construction jobs as well as jobs in related industries, etc. The collapse would have still taken the rest of the stock market down.

Conversely, even WITH the investment component, if the banks were not required to make those high risk loans the number of mortgage defaults would not have ballooned like they did, the banks would not have taken a hit from those defaults, the financial insurance companies would not have gone broke covering bad assets, and the whole crisis NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!!

Bottom line: the claim that the banking crisis is the result of "free market" failing is absolutely false. It was banking regulations that forced high risk mortgage lending. It was high risk mortgages that ended in vastly increased loan defaults. It was the vastly increased loan defaults that resulted in losses that could not be covered by other income sources, which in turn led to banks failing, and the domino effect on the rest of the economy. The CAUSE was bad regulations, not lack of them.

I don't know if you watched the video but if you did you didn't understand what it was saying. There were no regulations. None. The government, supposedly, did not know what was happening and the lady who tried to expose it was shot down by Greenspan and others who believed the market would look after those bundles of worthless investments.

She told Congress regulations were necessary and Congress disagreed. That means no regulations were in force. It was an unregulated part of the market.

As you said yourself, "banks extending loans far beyond their capacity.."

That is what caused the crisis. Yes, some banks might have gone under but nowhere near the crisis amount. The government, supposedly, was unaware of where the banks were getting their money. That was the part of the market that was unregulated.

The lady in the video wanted Congress to impose regulations. Why would she ask for regulations and why would Greenspan and others oppose her if there were already regulations in place?

Why do you keep saying there were regulations when the video clearly shows the lady telling Congress there weren't any regulations and they were needed?

 

[Good Luck]

I don't know if you watched the video but if you did you didn't understand what it was saying. There were no regulations. None. The government, supposedly, did not know what was happening and the lady who tried to expose it was shot down by Greenspan and others who believed the market would look after those bundles of worthless investments.

She told Congress regulations were necessary and Congress disagreed. That means no regulations were in force. It was an unregulated part of the market.

As you said yourself, "banks extending loans far beyond their capacity.."

That is what caused the crisis. Yes, some banks might have gone under but nowhere near the crisis amount. The government, supposedly, was unaware of where the banks were getting their money. That was the part of the market that was unregulated.

The lady in the video wanted Congress to impose regulations. Why would she ask for regulations and why would Greenspan and others oppose her if there were already regulations in place?

Why do you keep saying there were regulations when the video clearly shows the lady telling Congress there weren't any regulations and they were needed?

You can watch all the ladies testifying you want. I, on the other hand, prefer to look up the laws themselves and see what they say. Anyone who says there were NO regulations is a flat out liar. Period. You can prove that yourself. The laws and regulations under FTC are easily accessed, as are all other banking and financial regulations. You can look up yourself the regulation that allows banks to lend more money than they have in cash reserves, and by how much. You can read for yourself the FTC regulation that requires financial assets to be packaged (thus concealing the nature of the loans) before they can be sold on the investment market. Be prepared for a LOT of reading, though, because there are a LOT of regulations governing the financial industry.

Anyone who say the government was "unaware" where the banks were getting the money to lend is also a flat out liar. (They'd HAVE to be lying, as anyone STUPID enough to make that claim honestly would be unable to articulate their beliefs - or stand upright for that matter.) Banks and all other financial institutions are required to make statements to the federal reserve and/or FTC (depending on type of institution) several times a year. (Can you honestly not know this basic fact?) Income derived from investment sales of mortgages is has to be reported as does ANYTHING that adds to their cash reserves. In fact income derived from sale of financial assets as investment has to be reported twice: to the federal reserve AND to FTC. Loans issued, including mortgages, also have to be reported - very detailed reports as part of CRA. What do you think banks do to show they meet CRA requirements? Stick up their fingers and say "scout's honor"? It's fucking STUPID to actually believe the government did not know the conditions of the banks, from overextending loans to bringing in cash reserves by selling off loans as investment packages. ALL of it was included in banks' statements. They sure as hell knew Fanny and Freddy were way over extended - the republicans were talking about pulling in the regulation on how much a bank could over extend BECAUSE of Fanny and Freddy being over extended - they knew it, they said something, and because Fanny and Freddy are pet housing projects, they swept it under the rug.

No regulations: LIE, easily proven. Government did not know, LIE, simple logic.

But, you want to believe the lies, go right ahead. Heaven forbid you might want to learn something that is in conflict with your "capitalism-BAD, government-GOOD" preconceptions.

 

[apple0154]

Anyone who say the government was "unaware" where the banks were getting the money to lend is also a flat out liar. (They'd HAVE to be lying, as anyone STUPID enough to make that claim honestly would be unable to articulate their beliefs - or stand upright for that matter.) Banks and all other financial institutions are required to make statements to the federal reserve and/or FTC (depending on type of institution) several times a year. (Can you honestly not know this basic fact?)

"In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

If you are unable to comprehend that paragraph I can't help you.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

You can watch all the ladies testifying you want. I, on the other hand, prefer to look up the laws themselves and see what they say. Anyone who says there were NO regulations is a flat out liar. Period. You can prove that yourself. The laws and regulations under FTC are easily accessed, as are all other banking and financial regulations. You can look up yourself the regulation that allows banks to lend more money than they have in cash reserves, and by how much. You can read for yourself the FTC regulation that requires financial assets to be packaged (thus concealing the nature of the loans) before they can be sold on the investment market. Be prepared for a LOT of reading, though, because there are a LOT of regulations governing the financial industry.

Anyone who say the government was "unaware" where the banks were getting the money to lend is also a flat out liar. (They'd HAVE to be lying, as anyone STUPID enough to make that claim honestly would be unable to articulate their beliefs - or stand upright for that matter.) Banks and all other financial institutions are required to make statements to the federal reserve and/or FTC (depending on type of institution) several times a year. (Can you honestly not know this basic fact?) Income derived from investment sales of mortgages is has to be reported as does ANYTHING that adds to their cash reserves. In fact income derived from sale of financial assets as investment has to be reported twice: to the federal reserve AND to FTC. Loans issued, including mortgages, also have to be reported - very detailed reports as part of CRA. What do you think banks do to show they meet CRA requirements? Stick up their fingers and say "scout's honor"? It's fucking STUPID to actually believe the government did not know the conditions of the banks, from overextending loans to bringing in cash reserves by selling off loans as investment packages. ALL of it was included in banks' statements. They sure as hell knew Fanny and Freddy were way over extended - the republicans were talking about pulling in the regulation on how much a bank could over extend BECAUSE of Fanny and Freddy being over extended - they knew it, they said something, and because Fanny and Freddy are pet housing projects, they swept it under the rug.

No regulations: LIE, easily proven. Government did not know, LIE, simple logic.

But, you want to believe the lies, go right ahead. Heaven forbid you might want to learn something that is in conflict with your "capitalism-BAD, government-GOOD" preconceptions.

 

[Good Luck]

"In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

If you are unable to comprehend that paragraph I can't help you.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

And if you cannot comprehend that practically every claim in your referenced program is a lie, you are completely beyond help. What steps have you taken to verify the claims of that program? Have you researched federal banking laws and FTC regulations to see what is there? Or do you just blindly accept as ungarnished truth anything a TV show presents that agrees with your preconceptions?

1: It proves NOTHING about what the government did or did not know about where banks were receiving money. All it does is say that the government ignored calls for regulation. Does that mean the government was ignorant of what was going on? It's a lie that they did not. Banks have been required since the 30s to report their financial record several times a year. Those reports include where they receive any revenues.

2: The derivatives market did NOT "trigger" the financial collapse. It was a sudden drastic increase in defaulted loans that was the trigger. It gets tiring, but maybe someone else will recognize the basic logical truth that had loan defaults not vaulted upward, no crisis would have been triggered.

3: It cannot be successfully argued the derivatives market was a significant cause in the overall collapse - just a trace of how it was extended into other areas of the economy. Banks failed because they were drastically overextended. Loans way outstripped their cash reserves, so when those loans defaulted, they had nothing left to operate on. The derivatives market gave the banks MORE cash reserves which LOWERED the extent to which they were over extended. And for the umpteenth time, the derivatives market would have been just fine if the banks had not been forced by law to make too many high risk loans in the first damned place. More high risk loans yielded more defaults. More high risk loans also yielded higher levels of over extension. Add teh two together, and we ended in a disaster. Not because of LACK of regulations in the derivatives market, but because regulations in the lending market required banks to act stupidly.

Like I said, believe the lies if you want. But don't expect me to.

 

[zoombwaz]

Except we haven't had conservative ideology, just appeasement of the Democrat/ socialist Party by the GOP.

What horseshit. Name one instance in the last 30 years where the GOP "appeased" the Democratic Party (please note spelling of party name...there is no such entity as the "Democrat Party"), and as far as the Democratic party being socialist, only someone who was not paying attention in, or was in a coma during Political Science 101 would make that asinine claim, unless your definition of socialist is a party that is only 90% sold out to big corporate interests, as opposed to the GOP, which is 100% sold out, and a more poltroonish bunch of hypocrites, liars, and political whores than the current crop of the GOP has never existed. Did anyone catch McConnell clumsily trying to dodge David Gregory's question on paying for making the tax cuts for the rich permanent on Meet the Press? They are afraid to tell the truth to the American public: that they don't give a flying fuck about them, and only care about the very wealthy. Why else would they continue to conflate the top 1% with small business owners, almost none of whom are in that cohort earning more than $250,000 a year? Why else are they publicly pretending that the owner of a small business with gross revenues of $250,000 would be taxed the same as someone with a net adjusted income of that amount? Anybody who believes that swill is a halfwit. If one can't read a P&L statement, one needs to stay the fuck out of tax policy debates.

Put simply, the GOP definition of bipartisanship over the last 30 years is, "No compromise. Do it our way" when they are in power, including threats to use the"nuclear option"o f abolishing the filibuster if the Dems dared to use it. When they are out of power, their chorus is shortened to "NO!" and the erstwhile would-be-wielders of the "nuclear option" on the filibuster have become the most profligate abusers of the filibuster in history. They are pathological liars and hypocritical assholes unmatched in our history. For all the Dems' faults, and their faults are legion, they are models of probity by comparison to the frothing, prevaricating degenerates of the current GOP.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What horseshit. Name one instance in the last 30 years where the GOP "appeased" the Democratic Party (please note spelling of party name...there is no such entity as the "Democrat Party"), and as far as the Democratic party being socialist, only someone who was not paying attention in, or was in a coma during Political Science 101 would make that asinine claim, unless your definition of socialist is a party that is only 90% sold out to big corporate interests, as opposed to the GOP, which is 100% sold out, and a more poltroonish bunch of hypocrites, liars, and political whores than the current crop of the GOP has never existed. Did anyone catch McConnell clumsily trying to dodge David Gregory's question on paying for making the tax cuts for the rich permanent on Meet the Press? They are afraid to tell the truth to the American public: that they don't give a flying fuck about them, and only care about the very wealthy. Why else would they continue to conflate the top 1% with small business owners, almost none of whom are in that cohort earning more than $250,000 a year? Why else are they publicly pretending that the owner of a small business with gross revenues of $250,000 would be taxed the same as someone with a net adjusted income of that amount? Anybody who believes that swill is a halfwit. If one can't read a P&L statement, one needs to stay the fuck out of tax policy debates.

Put simply, the GOP definition of bipartisanship over the last 30 years is, "No compromise. Do it our way" when they are in power, including threats to use the"nuclear option"o f abolishing the filibuster if the Dems dared to use it. When they are out of power, their chorus is shortened to "NO!" and the erstwhile would-be-wielders of the "nuclear option" on the filibuster have become the most profligate abusers of the filibuster in history. They are pathological liars and hypocritical assholes unmatched in our history. For all the Dems' faults, and their faults are legion, they are models of probity by comparison to the frothing, prevaricating degenerates of the current GOP.

Hey Zoom.
Welcome back, you old fart.

 

[zoombwaz]

Gotta realize something: according to today's hard core liberal democrat, the "Center" line is draw about halfway between full blown socialism and Marxist communism. Karl Marx is "left of center" according to their massively skewed spectrum.

I used to be a democrat. But when they moved so far to the left that they define socialism as moderate, I started speaking out. When I got told to STFU, it was the last straw. (actual quote was "shut your nigger mouth and do as you're told" being 1/2 Native American, 1/4 black and 1/4 white I am a couple tones lighter than Obama, and several lighter than the speaker.) That is when I decided to not support the democratic party (exclusively) any longer. Since then the hard cores have moved even farther left, with their rhetoric actually defending socialism, instead of protesting they are not socialists. A big change - and goes a long way in legitimizing all the far right rhetoric over the last decades which accused the left of having a socialist agenda.

What color is the sky on your planet? It is the right that has been redrawing the political spectrum, when a center-right, Republican-lite president like Bill Clinton is excoriated by the wing-nut right as a leftist. Only on the Bizarro planet could Clinton be considered a leftist and Obama a socialist, and in truth the commonly-used appellation of "centrist" is bullshit. This is no longer a conflict of left vs right, where a center position is possible. For the last 30 years it has been a conflict of top vs bottom, and the positions are diametrically opposed. There is no compromise position between the plutocratic desire to concentrate power in the hands of the few, and the American republic, whose success depends on the dilution of power into the hands of the many. No compromise centrist position is possible in such a conflict. For the American experiment in government of the people, by the people, and for the people to survive, the would-be plutocrats and oligarchs who want to loot our treasury and rule us by fiat must be crushed without mercy, just as they are trying to do to us.

 

[zoombwaz]

Hey Zoom.
Welcome back, you old fart.

Thanks, I think.

You know, what's really sad is that I can no longer claim that I'm not an old fart. When you've been operated on by four different orthopedic surgeons in four years, and two of them are father and son, there's pretty much no denying your Old Fartdom.

But I still refuse to go quietly.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Thanks, I think.

You know, what's really sad is that I can no longer claim that I'm not an old fart. When you've been operated on by four different orthopedic surgeons in four years, and two of them are father and son, there's pretty much no denying your Old Fartdom.

But I still refuse to go quietly.

:lol:

 

[zoombwaz]

While I will not argue with the idea that better (not necessarily more - but definitely better) regulations need to be put in place, the LIE is that the banking failure is an example of failed FREE MARKET. While the last two decades has seen diminished regulations on the banking industry, calling it "free market" is less accurate than saying up is toward the ground. Despite the regulations removed (by BOTH parties I might add) over the past couple decades, other regulations have been added, including "fair lending laws" which were also at the core of the collapse, requiring banks to lend mortgages, property loans, personal loans, and revolving credit loans to low income, high risk clients who ended up defaulting in droves - and THAT is the critical crux behind the collapse.

The banking industry is anything BUT a free market. It failed, true. Part (but definitely not all) of the reason it failed was due to inadequate regulations - true. But "failure of the free market system? ABSOLUTE LIE.

There is no such thing as a Free Market System, nor can one ever be allowed to come into existence, so your defense of same is foolish, and your claim that regulation of the banking industry was the crux of the collapse is either a lie or the clueless blather of the willfully ignorant.

 

[zoombwaz]

One more time: the banking industry is the most regulated industry on this planet. Calling a heavily regulated industry "free market" is pure bullshit. It was FCC regulations that allowed the mortgage companies to hide their high risk mortgages in neatly wrapped and deliberately mislabeled AAA packages. Without those regulations the mortgage bank would have been forced by free market to sell the mortgages for what they were without the neat packaging FCC regulations allow. FCC regulations are not free market - they are the government telling the investment market what they can and cannot do under which circumstances.

Not only that, but it was not the buying and selling of those mortgages that CAUSED the crash. It did extend the damages outside the mortgage banks. But the fault of the crash still lies in the fact that banks were forced by regulation to extend high risk credit in the first place. Had the loans not been high risk, selling them to other banks to generate more lending revenue would have had no detrimental effect. It was the defaulted loans, not the loans themselves. We were in a house full of waste paper and flammable plastics, and you're worried that someone spilled some lighter fluid. By focusing on the accelerant and not the match, you are not being honest in what caused the fire.

FCC??? WTF are you talking about?

 

[zoombwaz]

And if you cannot comprehend that practically every claim in your referenced program is a lie, you are completely beyond help. What steps have you taken to verify the claims of that program? Have you researched federal banking laws and FTC regulations to see what is there? Or do you just blindly accept as ungarnished truth anything a TV show presents that agrees with your preconceptions?

1: It proves NOTHING about what the government did or did not know about where banks were receiving money. All it does is say that the government ignored calls for regulation. Does that mean the government was ignorant of what was going on? It's a lie that they did not. Banks have been required since the 30s to report their financial record several times a year. Those reports include where they receive any revenues.

2: The derivatives market did NOT "trigger" the financial collapse. It was a sudden drastic increase in defaulted loans that was the trigger. It gets tiring, but maybe someone else will recognize the basic logical truth that had loan defaults not vaulted upward, no crisis would have been triggered.

3: It cannot be successfully argued the derivatives market was a significant cause in the overall collapse - just a trace of how it was extended into other areas of the economy. Banks failed because they were drastically overextended. Loans way outstripped their cash reserves, so when those loans defaulted, they had nothing left to operate on. The derivatives market gave the banks MORE cash reserves which LOWERED the extent to which they were over extended. And for the umpteenth time, the derivatives market would have been just fine if the banks had not been forced by law to make too many high risk loans in the first damned place. More high risk loans yielded more defaults. More high risk loans also yielded higher levels of over extension. Add teh two together, and we ended in a disaster. Not because of LACK of regulations in the derivatives market, but because regulations in the lending market required banks to act stupidly.

Like I said, believe the lies if you want. But don't expect me to.

Why not? You have your head so far up your ass, that you can actually see daylight. claiming that a few insufficient regulations means the industry was regulated is either disingenuous or retarded. Industries can be considered regulated when the rules go to the core of their business, like Glass-Steagall did. With its repeal passed by a corporatist congress and signed into law by a corporatist president, the most essential regulation of the banking industry was removed, making it for all intents and purposes deregulated, which is the proper and only meaningful term. No, the industry is not unregulated, but who gives a shit, except a nit-picking, straw-man arguing asshole like yourself. The point is that the crooks went after not every regulation, but the single most important one, and with its repeal the industry became deregulated, not unregulated, and as happens in every single case of deregulation, the cheaters and crooks take over, and the public gets hosed, and nobody gives a fuck how many minor, inconsequential regulations you have read. Those regs don't mean dick. The thieves went after the one they needed to be able to rip us off with impunity, and they succeeded. So your argument is meaningless drivel.

 

[DamnYankee]

What horseshit. Name one instance in the last 30 years where the GOP "appeased" the Democratic Party (please note spelling of party name...there is no such entity as the "Democrat Party"), and as far as the Democratic party being socialist, only someone who was not paying attention in, or was in a coma during Political Science 101 would make that asinine claim, unless your definition of socialist is a party that is only 90% sold out to big corporate interests, as opposed to the GOP, which is 100% sold out, and a more poltroonish bunch of hypocrites, liars, and political whores than the current crop of the GOP has never existed. Did anyone catch McConnell clumsily trying to dodge David Gregory's question on paying for making the tax cuts for the rich permanent on Meet the Press? They are afraid to tell the truth to the American public: that they don't give a flying fuck about them, and only care about the very wealthy. Why else would they continue to conflate the top 1% with small business owners, almost none of whom are in that cohort earning more than $250,000 a year? Why else are they publicly pretending that the owner of a small business with gross revenues of $250,000 would be taxed the same as someone with a net adjusted income of that amount? Anybody who believes that swill is a halfwit. If one can't read a P&L statement, one needs to stay the fuck out of tax policy debates.

Put simply, the GOP definition of bipartisanship over the last 30 years is, "No compromise. Do it our way" when they are in power, including threats to use the"nuclear option"o f abolishing the filibuster if the Dems dared to use it. When they are out of power, their chorus is shortened to "NO!" and the erstwhile would-be-wielders of the "nuclear option" on the filibuster have become the most profligate abusers of the filibuster in history. They are pathological liars and hypocritical assholes unmatched in our history. For all the Dems' faults, and their faults are legion, they are models of probity by comparison to the frothing, prevaricating degenerates of the current GOP.

The GOP has compromised on conservative principles since after 1920. Since that time we have seen our "limited government" consume 3% of the GNP to well over 30%. Every time that they vote for a program that is not enumerated in the Constitution- violating the 9th and 10th Amendments, they have compromised. Its why we are in trouble now. Its why we are in so much debt, and communist China is funding our government. Its why Social Security and Medicare will present us with a 110 trillion dollar liability as the Baby Boom generation retires.

On my use of the term "Democrat Party". Consistency of language: Republicans make up the Republican Party and Democrats make up the Democrat Party. Democrats do not make up a "Democratic" Party any more than Republicans make up a "Republicanatic" Party.

Truth in language: Democrats insist on calling themselves "Democratic" in order to invoke a positive image. After all, who can be against something that is democratic? However, there's nothing democratic about the Democrat Party; therefore to call themselves "Democratic" is a lie.

I am on record of using the correct term "Democrat Party" long before it became popular with popular pundits.

 

[apple0154]

And if you cannot comprehend that practically every claim in your referenced program is a lie, you are completely beyond help. What steps have you taken to verify the claims of that program? Have you researched federal banking laws and FTC regulations to see what is there? Or do you just blindly accept as ungarnished truth anything a TV show presents that agrees with your preconceptions?

1: It proves NOTHING about what the government did or did not know about where banks were receiving money. All it does is say that the government ignored calls for regulation. Does that mean the government was ignorant of what was going on? It's a lie that they did not. Banks have been required since the 30s to report their financial record several times a year. Those reports include where they receive any revenues.

2: The derivatives market did NOT "trigger" the financial collapse. It was a sudden drastic increase in defaulted loans that was the trigger. It gets tiring, but maybe someone else will recognize the basic logical truth that had loan defaults not vaulted upward, no crisis would have been triggered.

3: It cannot be successfully argued the derivatives market was a significant cause in the overall collapse - just a trace of how it was extended into other areas of the economy. Banks failed because they were drastically overextended. Loans way outstripped their cash reserves, so when those loans defaulted, they had nothing left to operate on. The derivatives market gave the banks MORE cash reserves which LOWERED the extent to which they were over extended. And for the umpteenth time, the derivatives market would have been just fine if the banks had not been forced by law to make too many high risk loans in the first damned place. More high risk loans yielded more defaults. More high risk loans also yielded higher levels of over extension. Add teh two together, and we ended in a disaster. Not because of LACK of regulations in the derivatives market, but because regulations in the lending market required banks to act stupidly.

Like I said, believe the lies if you want. But don't expect me to.

I have verified the TV program's claims . There is a video of Ms. Born testifying before Congress and specifically asking for more regulation and oversight regarding that aspect of the market. The market required more regulation.

When the government required the banks to lend more money it should have followed up with oversight and regulations dealing with how the banks obtained that money. More market place regulation.

If more regulations and oversight had been in place the crisis could have been contained. If the banks couldn't sell their bundles they would have had less money to loan. What is so difficult to understand?

 

[Good Luck]

I have verified the TV program's claims . There is a video of Ms. Born testifying before Congress and specifically asking for more regulation and oversight regarding that aspect of the market. The market required more regulation.

When the government required the banks to lend more money it should have followed up with oversight and regulations dealing with how the banks obtained that money. More market place regulation.

If more regulations and oversight had been in place the crisis could have been contained. If the banks couldn't sell their bundles they would have had less money to loan. What is so difficult to understand?

Are you actually this stupid? So fucking WHAT if you verified Born testified before Congress? DID YOU VERIFY WHAT SHE CLAIMS? Did you do ANYTHING about verifying that there were no regulations in place? (No you cannot have because the relevant legal code is easily accessible.

Second, the government KNEW how the banks were getting their money. Again, you can verify the regulations on what banks have to report and when - if you wanted to instead of continuing to support the outright lies of the big government regulators. All you can do is say "Born said so! It's true, it's true, it's true!!! Because Born said so and I verified that Born said so!"

And you still totally ignore what the term "over extended loans" means. I tmeans they LOANED MORE THAN THEY HAD!! Good GOD! You keep talking abou the banks making more money and lending it out. SO WHAT? It was the loans that they did not HAVE the money for that killed them. If you loan money you do not have, and then that money is not paid back, your loan business is going to go belly up becasuse you owe someone else that money you loaned that you did not have. OTOH, if you lend money that you DO have and it is not paid back, you can use other means to cover your ass and limp by a bad period because at least you are NOT IN DEBT! What is easy for people with BRAINS to understand is it was the overextended loans, not the loans covered by derivative sales, that busted the mortgage banks.

Also, just because you continue to totally ignore this factor, not even bothering to acknowledge it let alone refute it: It was the DEFAULTS that cause the problem in the first place. Loans that are PAID don't cause problems. Loans that are NOT paid DO cause problems. Force a business to loan money to a person who cannot pay it back CAUSES PROBLEMS.

And did it ever occur to you that the government WANTED the banks to make those loans? What good would it be to regulate banks in a way to make more loans in high risk areas, then regulate the banks in a different way so they could not make the loans the government WANTED THEM TO MAKE? The banks would not have been making those loans if regulations did not require it. Take away the regulation to make high risk loans, and there would have been no need for a regulation to not make so many high risk loans.

So again we reach the conclusion that it was regulations, and NOT free market forces that caused the crisis. This is because THERE WAS NO FREE MARKET. It was and is a heavily regulated market. STUPID regulations, yes, but still regulated.

 

[apple0154]

Are you actually this stupid? So fucking WHAT if you verified Born testified before Congress? DID YOU VERIFY WHAT SHE CLAIMS? Did you do ANYTHING about verifying that there were no regulations in place? (No you cannot have because the relevant legal code is easily accessible.

Second, the government KNEW how the banks were getting their money. Again, you can verify the regulations on what banks have to report and when - if you wanted to instead of continuing to support the outright lies of the big government regulators. All you can do is say "Born said so! It's true, it's true, it's true!!! Because Born said so and I verified that Born said so!"

And you still totally ignore what the term "over extended loans" means. I tmeans they LOANED MORE THAN THEY HAD!! Good GOD! You keep talking abou the banks making more money and lending it out. SO WHAT? It was the loans that they did not HAVE the money for that killed them. If you loan money you do not have, and then that money is not paid back, your loan business is going to go belly up becasuse you owe someone else that money you loaned that you did not have. OTOH, if you lend money that you DO have and it is not paid back, you can use other means to cover your ass and limp by a bad period because at least you are NOT IN DEBT! What is easy for people with BRAINS to understand is it was the overextended loans, not the loans covered by derivative sales, that busted the mortgage banks.

Also, just because you continue to totally ignore this factor, not even bothering to acknowledge it let alone refute it: It was the DEFAULTS that cause the problem in the first place. Loans that are PAID don't cause problems. Loans that are NOT paid DO cause problems. Force a business to loan money to a person who cannot pay it back CAUSES PROBLEMS.

And did it ever occur to you that the government WANTED the banks to make those loans? What good would it be to regulate banks in a way to make more loans in high risk areas, then regulate the banks in a different way so they could not make the loans the government WANTED THEM TO MAKE? The banks would not have been making those loans if regulations did not require it. Take away the regulation to make high risk loans, and there would have been no need for a regulation to not make so many high risk loans.

So again we reach the conclusion that it was regulations, and NOT free market forces that caused the crisis. This is because THERE WAS NO FREE MARKET. It was and is a heavily regulated market. STUPID regulations, yes, but still regulated.

Obviously we have a failure to communicate.

Let's start with this. What does the following mean to you: "At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008." (Msg 45)

1. Does that mean the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market was regulated?
2. Does that mean the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market was not regulated?
3. Does that mean tomorrow will be a sunny day?

 

[Good Luck]

Obviously we have a failure to communicate.

Let's start with this. What does the following mean to you: "At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008." (Msg 45)

1. Does that mean the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market was regulated?
2. Does that mean the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market was not regulated?
3. Does that mean tomorrow will be a sunny day?

It means the writer uses prose that you agree with so you don't give a ripe pig fart if it is true or not.

What we have here is a piece of unsupported rhetoric based on the video of a person testifying before congress, making several assumptions and conclusions about it, and you acting like the whole thing is the Lord's own Gospel.

Again: What have you done to VERIFY THEIR CLAIMS? First we have Born making claims before Congress. SO WHAT?!? I could go before Congress and testify I think televisions commercials need more regulations. Does that make my testimony factual? Or opinion?

Did either Born, or the writer referencing her testimony cite the legal code, showing where the holes are? Did you look up the code to see if the term "unregulated" applies, or if the better description is "under regulated" or even "badly regulated"?

The writer makes an unsupported statement, you like it, and that is your ONLY reference? Do you have anything else or not? Shall I pull up a piece of writing showing how FTL spaceships work and call it a factual reference?

The "miscommunication" is the way you accept someone's bullshit as God's truth without any farther research into whether they know shit from apple butter.

One more time: go look up the banking laws. It does not take a lawyer to see the areas which require banks to report their earnings FROM ALL SOURCES in fine detail. It is a federal law. http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/ Look it up. Learn that the claim the government did not know "where banks were getting their money" is an outright lie. IF they "didn't know" it's because they hid their eyes and covered their ears like the "no evil" monkeys.

Also, look at the requirements of CRA, and how they apply to what banks need to include in their financial statements. Note that loan to asset ratios are included in the required data, again proving the government was fully informed what was going on:
http://www.ffiec.gov/CRA/guide.htm

Go look at FTC regulations governing the sale of financial assets (ie: outstanding loans). While the code is in legalese and therefore confusing (deliberately, I am certain) you can still make out where it actually REQUIRES loans to be packaged. Ie: a bank cannot select a few financial assets and sell them one at a time based on their merits. They are REQUIRED to do what they did. That is the LAW. The banks were not "secretive" about it - they were doing what the law demanded.
http://accountinginfo.com/financial-accounting-standards/asc-800/860-20-166.htm

In short, look at the FACTS, instead of a bunch of unsupported rhetoric. All you have now is an article based on someone's unsupported testimony. I have the actual laws and how they apply to the financial industry.

 

[Crashk]

What color is the sky on your planet? It is the right that has been redrawing the political spectrum, when a center-right, Republican-lite president like Bill Clinton is excoriated by the wing-nut right as a leftist. Only on the Bizarro planet could Clinton be considered a leftist and Obama a socialist, and in truth the commonly-used appellation of "centrist" is bullshit. This is no longer a conflict of left vs right, where a center position is possible. For the last 30 years it has been a conflict of top vs bottom, and the positions are diametrically opposed. There is no compromise position between the plutocratic desire to concentrate power in the hands of the few, and the American republic, whose success depends on the dilution of power into the hands of the many. No compromise centrist position is possible in such a conflict. For the American experiment in government of the people, by the people, and for the people to survive, the would-be plutocrats and oligarchs who want to loot our treasury and rule us by fiat must be crushed without mercy, just as they are trying to do to us.

This is the real war.
You da man.