Democrat campaigns out spend Republicans 1000 to one on average

Discussion in 'Politics' started by EdwardBaiamonte, Jun 7, 2012.

  1. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,636
    Thanks Received:
    1,133
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,067
    They promise more and more welfare entitlements while noble Republicans merely promise freedom from big liberal government. Why not make Democrats illegal since their use of the system is so contrary to Constitutional intent? Who could argue with that?




    "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
    -Benjamin Franklin
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. Leweman
    Offline

    Leweman Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,009
    Thanks Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +737
    Don't lie, liar! Democrats win every election when they spend at least the exact, equal amount of money as their competitor.
     
  3. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,636
    Thanks Received:
    1,133
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,067
    if true I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or admit you have no idea what you're talking about, liberal.
     
  4. asaratis
    Offline

    asaratis Uppity Senior Citizen Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,288
    Thanks Received:
    2,656
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Stockbridge
    Ratings:
    +4,532
    That would entail denial of their freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. While I cannot approve of that, I would support legal means to preclude the buying of elections...by any party.
     
  5. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,636
    Thanks Received:
    1,133
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,067
    1) well I would not make their treasonous speech illegal either , just their treasonous activity

    2) so then if you are opposed to buying elections would you make Democrat activity illegal??
     
  6. francoHFW
    Online

    francoHFW Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    33,565
    Thanks Received:
    2,181
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +5,643
    Dems don't promise more welfare, dupes. This is the second Pub Great Depression fcs. Pub dupes! Change the GD channel, morons.
     
  7. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,636
    Thanks Received:
    1,133
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,067
    Hate to rock your world but BO is a Democrat and our best newspapers and economists on left and right believe it was liberal government that caused the BO depression.


    "First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor


    " The Federal reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"





    You may not have heard of the Federal Reserve system but it exists to inflate and deflate the currency supply through the housing market. They inflated too much for too long. This caused what they call a housing bubble. While the bubble was inflating all the big banks and many insurance companies bought bubble mortgages thinking they were sound rather than merely purchased or made possible by newly printed funny money. When the bubble deflated they all lost money on the mortgages. It would be analogous to the government making cars and giving them to GM so everyone could have a car. If GM got them by the ton and for very little money of course they would find a way to move them . This is essentially what the Banks did with the free money. In addition to the Federal Reserve System you had Fanny and Freddie which bought and guaranteed many of the mortgages so no one had to worry about them failing. Then you had CRA, FHA, Federal Home Loan Bank Board( 3% down payment loans) and several others that were designed to get everybody in their own home.

    When the states tried to move against predatory lending by national banks they were blocked by the bank's federal regulator, the office of the comptroller of the currency, That empowered money lenders say Lynn Turner.

    Just as significantly you had very badly conceived accounting rules that hid the problems from everyone until it was too late. Accounting rules are supposed to do the opposite, not move billions in potential liabilities off the balance sheet onto tiny footnote on the bottom of a page as happened at Citibank, or onto on sentence at the end of a 10-Q report as happened at AIG, or as generally happened with SIVs (structured investment vehicles). Then you had gov't rules from the last crisis, the Enron Crisis, the created mark-to- market accounting rules for this crisis that many believe greatly exacerbated this crisis.

    Then you had the problem with the government backed ratings agencies that simply failed to rate the mortgage backed and related securities, properly. Sorry, it had little to do with Bush, but had everything to do with inane attempts by the liberal to regulate the free market!


    Warren Buffett: "There are significant limits to what regulation can accomplish. As a dramatic illustration, take two of the biggest accounting disasters in the past ten years: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We're talking billions and billions of dollars of misstatements at both places".

    Now, these are two incredibly important institutions. I mean, they accounted for over 40% of the mortgage flow a few years back. Right now I think they're up to 70%. They're quasi-governmental in nature. So the government set up an organization called OFHEO. I'm not sure what all the letters stand for. [Note to Warren: They stand for Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.] But if you go to OFHEO's website, you'll find that its purpose was to just watch over these two companies. OFHEO had 200 employees. Their job was simply to look at two companies and say, "Are these guys behaving like they're supposed to?" And of course what happened were two of the greatest accounting misstatements in history while these 200 people had their jobs. It's incredible. I mean, two for two!

    “Whatever regulatory changes are made, they will pale in comparison to the change already evident in today’s markets,” he said. “Those markets for an indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime.”-Alan Greenspan

    Courtesy A. Smith:FDR created Fannie.
    LBJ Privatized Fannie - creating an "enron" like environment:
    Greg Mankiw's Blog: Thanks, LBJ

    Carter's Community Reinvestment Act - accelerated by Clinton - pushed risky loans:
    Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Clinton pushed Fannie into Subprime - the most critical mistake:
    Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - Page 1 - News - New York - Village Voice

    Even the NY Times figured this out: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

    Bush and McCain attempted to reform Fannie on 17 occasions
    Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone Only To Have Dems Ignored His Warnings :: Political News and commentaries :: Hyscience

    The risky subprime loans fueled another layer of risk - derivatives
    https://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/2947518

    The LA Times reported on Clinton's "subprime" success in 1999:
    Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites' - Los Angeles Times


    "First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor( arch conservative, author of the Taylor Rule)

    " The Federal reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"


    If you still can't grasp what happened why not read "Reckless Endangerment" by NY Times person and see if you can say with a straight face that the crisis was not caused by liberal interference wit the free market.


    Fannie and Freddie had purchased $4.9 trillion of the mortgages outstanding as of the end of 2007, 70% of which the GSEs had packaged and sold to investors with a guarantee of payment, and the remainder of which Fannie and Freddie kept for their own portfolios. The fraction of outstanding home mortgage debt that was either held or guaranteed by the GSEs (known as their "total book of business") rose from 6% in 1971 to 51% in 2003. Book of business relative to annual GDP went from 1.6% to 33%.



    Sum of retained mortgage portfolio and mortgage backed securities outstanding for Fannie and Freddie (from OFHEO 2008 Report to Congress) divided by (1) total 1- to 4-family home mortgage debt outstanding (from Census for 1971-2003 and FRB for 2004-2007) and (2) annual nominal GDP.


    The problem is summed up succinctly by Stan Liebowitz of the University of Texas at Dallas:

    From the current handwringing, you’d think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards--at the behest of community groups and "progressive" political forces.… For years, rising house prices hid the default problems since quick refinances were possible. But now that house prices have stopped rising, we can clearly see the damage done by relaxed loan standards.



    Washington Post:

    Fannie Mae aimed to benefit from subprime loans and expand the market for them -- and hoped to pass much of the risk on to others, documents show. Along with subprime loans, which were typically issued to borrowers with blemished credit, the company targeted so-called Alt-A loans, which were often made with no verification of the borrower's income.

    "By entering new markets -- especially Alt-A and subprime -- and guaranteeing more of our customers' products at market prices, we met our goal of increasing market share from 22 to 25 percent," Mudd wrote in a 2006 year-end report to the Fannie Mae board dated Jan. 3, 2007.

    In other internal documents, there was a common refrain: One of Fannie Mae's objectives for 2006 was to "increase our penetration into subprime."

    In an interview, Fannie Mae Executive Vice President Thomas A. Lund said the company pursued the purchase of subprime loans in 2006 and 2007 at the request of lenders, who wanted Fannie Mae to take the loans off their books. He said Fannie Mae hoped to bring higher standards to the market, and he added that the loans helped the company in its struggle to meet goals the government had set for Fannie Mae's advancement of affordable housing.



    they reflected the company's appetite for subprime and Alt-A mortgages. The company had a long and deep involvement in this market through a different form of investment.

    Instead of buying the loans and securitizing them itself, Fannie Mae had invested in securities packaged by others from pools of these loans. Going back at least as far as 2002, Fannie Mae had taken on tens of billions of dollars of such securities, according to regulatory data.

    Fannie Mae's investment in Alt-A and subprime securities issued by others would later prove costly. But in Mudd's January 2007 report, as he reviewed the company's business, they didn't even draw a mention.



    From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans.

    WP:Today, 3 million to 4 million families are expected to lose their homes to foreclosure because they cannot afford their high-interest subprime loans. Lower-income and minority home buyers -- those who were supposed to benefit from HUD's actions -- are falling into default at a rate at least three times that of other borrowers.



    WP: Fannie and Freddie finance about 40 percent of all U.S. mortgages, with $5.3 trillion in outstanding debt. Owned by private shareholders but chartered by Congress, they are exempt from state and local taxes and receive an estimated $6.5 billion-a-year federal subsidy because they can borrow money more cheaply than other investors. In return, they are expected to serve "public purposes," including helping to make home buying more affordable



    Since HUD became their regulator in 1992, Fannie and Freddie each year are supposed to buy a portion of "affordable" mortgages made to underserved borrowers. Every four years, HUD reviews the goals to adapt to market changes.

    In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders



    But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.



    In 2003, the two (fanny/Freddie)bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more heavily on the securities to meet goals.
     
  8. francoHFW
    Online

    francoHFW Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    33,565
    Thanks Received:
    2,181
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +5,643
    Thanks for the Pubspam...east to find, eh? That's the Pub Propaganda Machine. Absolutely gigantic, and absolutely FOS. Wade through ten pages of that crappe until you get to the truth...

    F+F had 70% of mortgage market before 2003. Then they had 20-30% for a few years, and private firms took over and screwed the pooch, with AIG insuring crappe, and the rating services and Booosh's crony/corrupt regulators partying along with them. Your pubcrappe is known as the BIG LIE.
     
  9. francoHFW
    Online

    francoHFW Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    33,565
    Thanks Received:
    2,181
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +5,643
    fact
     
  10. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,641
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,044
    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
     

Share This Page