Liberals Outraged, Too!!!

[thereisnospoon]

"America isn't a failed socialist state, it's a failed capitalist state. Case in point, the housing meltdown...."

What a dope.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.
He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy

3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA
Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.
Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

There are a number of problems with this post.

1) The State has always meddled in the market, and most of it has been to protect the interests of the Capitalist (through subsidies, bailouts, Patent Protection, legal protection of private property, legal administration of contracts, R&D support, military protection of overseas supply chains and regulatory favors that deliver competitive advantages. Again, you need to study lobbying and investigate how much money our capitalists suck from the State Sector. American Capitalism has always been heavily state dependent. The Free Market that Austrian Economists dream of is as utopian as Marx's Communist State. Neither has ever happened, and the capitalist doesn't want it to happen. Exxon wants the State to protect its oil fields in the Middle East. Big Telecom wants the satellite technology that came out of the Cold War Pentagon and NASA programs. Big Pharma wants nanny state patent protection against foreign and generic drug competitors. Every fucking business in the Southwest wants the energy/water that comes from harnessing the Colorado River via things like the Hoover Dam. The profit makers have always sucked at the teat of the Nanny State - from DAY ONE. And they've always cultivated a small but vocal collection of useful idiots who spread anti-government propaganda in hopes that the resultant cynicism will decrease citizen participation so that they can continue to loot the treasury, uncontested. It's a fucking hoax).

2) Ahhh, the blame game. Democrats are attacked for merely whispering Bush's name, yet your side has created an industry of blaming FDR and Carter, one of whom has been dead longer than most of us have been alive. This is the most hilarious double standard I have ever seen. You must be kidding with this stuff. Fannie/Freddie and the CRA were in place when the US Housing Market endured its most stable period. The stability lasted until ….

3) Bush 43 empowered Fannie/Freddie more than Carter/Clinton/Dodd could have ever dreamed. Please watch this video. Bush not only sketches his plan for using the power of Fannie to put poor people in homes, but he obliterates all the sensible lending regulations that were upheld by every administration prior. Check out what Bush does RE down-payments, which he erases. Watch the video and listen the most aggressive plan for expanding home ownership in America's history. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8]Home Ownership and President Bush - YouTube[/ame] Bush fueled a dead economy by loaning trillions of dollars into it on the backs of morons.

4) Fannie/Freddie represents a small portion of the problem. Everybody got in the game - it was global. The number of private mortgage and financial companies that got in the game is in the 1000s - and they all realized unprecedented wealth as the bubble grew . . . but it gets worse because many of them cashed in by strategically hedging the crash. Wall Street placed trillions of dollars of criminally insane bets on bad mortgages, many of which their partners underwrote, and then [wait for it] they created a trillion dollar industry insuring garbage that they were secretly betting against, and then [wait for it] they didn't have the money to cover losses on insurance products that gave them dynastic wealth, and then [wait for it] they got bailed out by the very Government which your side claims is oppressing them with taxes and regulations. Are you fucking kidding?

But seriously: nobody forced private Wall Street firms to generate billions of dollars in profits off a corruptly inflated housing bubble. Nobody forced them to create an entire industry of securities & derivatives from mortgage products that they had every opportunity to evaluate but simply didn't (perhaps because they - the private sector - own government and its bailout powers). Stop telling us that the State Oppresses business. Business owns the state and staffs government through election funding. This is why business gets subsidies for its operating costs . . . and patent protection for its products . . . and bailouts when shit goes bad.

ALSO: It's one thing for your neighbor to buy a house he can't afford, but it's quite another for private corporations to voluntarily place over twenty trillion dollars of securities & derivative bets on his loan. We were told to trust Wall Street's criminally flawed risk models because they were the financial innovators. We were told that Private Financial Firms (Lehman, Bear, Merrill, Morgan, Goldman) didn't need to be regulated by big brother because of Adam Smith's Homo Economicus, that is, rational self interest would ensure that our corporations would protect their investors. But, look what we got for our faith in Homo Economicus. Secondly, the pressure to create all those mortgages didn't come from a fully absorbed piece of 1977 legislation; rather, it came from Wall Street, which turned those mortgages into the largest and most criminal money making scheme in the history of our nation. To put this whole thing on Fannie/Freddie without mentioning the risk-management-failures of the big Wall Street financials is completely fucking insane. [My fear is that you don't even know what I'm talking about because your information sources never explained the relationship between the mortgage industry and the Wall Street financials]

Alas, I have to agree with some of your points.

5) Despite the fact that Reagan is credited for the great wave of deregulation that moved government out of the way so our innovative capitalists could lift all our boats . . . Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are 100% guilty of furthering the deregulation movement. Carter made it much easier for banks to set their own lending limits. He trusted private business to regulate their own risk. He didn't think the government had the information or incentive to be so heavily involved on the investment side of banking. He opened the door to the S&Ls, and Reagan doubled down. (Carter also deregulated Communications and Transportation, which worked far better than the deregulation of finance). Clinton acquiesced to Phil Graham and removed FDR's Glass-Stegall ACT, which prevented Commercial and Investment banks from merging and thereby exposing deposits ("savings") to speculative risk. Once they removed FDR's primary financial regulation, it allowed the big Wall Street financials to bet the savings of an entire generation on the most speculative housing bubble in world history. Clinton, like Reagan and Greenspan, believed that rational capitalists should be left alone to place whatever bets they want and that rational self interest would do the best job protecting the consumer. Who knew they would use these new financial freedoms to set up the largest ponzi scheme in our lifetime? But yes, both parties are absolutely guilty. I would just caution you against over-focusing on Fannie/Freddie, and under reporting Bush's very large role.

Lastly, you're right. Our system has none of the small market virtues imagined by Smith, who died long before corporations grew large enough to buy multiple governments.

Fannie Freddie was THE problem.
IOn 2003 this was known. Frank, Dodd and Watt as well as maxine Watters were warned this thing combined with CRA rules was about to spin out of control. These people protected the programs insisting that the less fortunate deserved a fair chance at the American dream of home ownership. They forced lenders to comply but extended a carrot on the end of a stick by promising the loans, should they default, would be backed up by government. Not only that, Washington had rules that made it possible to package up mortgages so brokers and banks could sell them as investment vehicles.
Hundreds of billions in home loans were traded, sold and resold. Everybody was doing it.
The last ones in line where the large brokerage houses like Goldman Sachs and others. They ended up holding the paper.
Everybody was making money. Until.......The loans to the highest risk buyers became too much for them to handle. Suddenly banks were seeing a flood of foreclosures. People who enjoyed low payments for the first 24-36 months found the payments unaffordable.
They literally walked away from their homes. As the paper became worthless, the whole thing collapsed. The economy went right with it. Unemployment went to the moon. The race to the bottom was on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. NYC had made the most egregious of errors in electing Communist/Progressive/Democrat Bill DeBlasio as mayor of this great city. So, there really is no element of surprise when DeBlasio tapped Brooklyn pastor Reverend Fred Lucas Jr., who serves as the chaplain to the Department of Sanitation, to provide the invocation at the inauguration ceremony.





2. The Reverend's speech was peppered with numerous inappropriate racial references, such as “End the civil wars and usher in a new Reconstruction era..." and words used were shackles, plantation, crooked, and emancipation proclamation."

The reverend referred to New York City as "the plantation called New York City."

3. But, heck, what would one expect, after all Communist/Progressive/Democrat DeBlasio is an avowed exponent of the Marxist 'religious' perspective called "Liberation Theology."

a. "... "Bill de Blasio says he doesn't believe in churches -- and he doesn't believe in God either," reports the NY Daily News.
De Blasio told reporters in the Bronx, "I’m not affiliated with any particular church. I do consider myself a spiritual person." He continued, "As I’ve said many times, I was very influenced by liberation theology, by Christian liberation theology in the work I did after college and after graduate school."
Mayor Elect Bill De Blasio Quashes Atheism Rumors, Says He's Spiritual But Unaffiliated

He means when he was in Nicaragua, working with the Sandinistas.







4. Coincidentally, Communist/Progressive/Democrat DeBlasio is known as New York's Obama....and Obama had the same kind of racialist banter at his inauguration.

a "Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen."
Reverend Joseph Lowry, at Obama Inauguration

Me...I'm as mellow as I can be.







5. But there is a ray of sunlight, as many Liberals found that divisionist polemics hard to stomach:

a." Personally, I am very versed in the income inequalities that exist today. I am also versed in the issues that exhist in New York City. There was no need for Reverend Lucas to use this opportunity to make erroneous references to slavery, with regards to the present conditions of New York City. I'm not going to tolerate this behavior from Sarah Palin or Phil Roberston, so i'm certainly not going to tolerate it from Reverend Lucas. "
The Urban Politico: New York City Mayor Bill deBlasio Inauguration (Full Video) & The Plantation called New York City (???)

b. I am a proud liberal, but the speakers opening DeBlasio's inaugural are embarrassing. "The Plantation of NYC"......F**K OFF!
At Bill de Blasio?s mayoral inauguration, invocation speaker says NYC is a ?plantation? | Twitchy

c. Cleric Fred Lucas Jr., calling NYC a plantation in his "prayer" is a disgrace! Isn't this supposed to be a day of uniting? linda stasi [MENTION=18648]Linda[/MENTION]stasi Ibid.

d. A liberal New Yorker friend's candid comment about some of the tone so far: "This stuff is freaking me out." Josh Greenman [MENTION=22477]Jos[/MENTION]hgreenman Ibid.






7. Of course, there were examples of boilerplate Liberalism, too...not just from the podium:
"777Mark777 Sicarium
Deal wit it, hombre. You don't like it? Then move back home to Europe where you came from. You European people are illegal aliens here anyway." Preacher: New York City is a 'plantation' [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

And this is exactly the kind of sentiment the DeBlasio-Lucas Axis was meant to bring out.

At least he left the 'mellow' folks alone!






6. Just more of this: De Blasio was roundly criticized back in November when Harry Belafonte, the civil rights leader and actor who was also a de Blasio surrogate, compared the libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch to the Ku Klux Klan.
Preacher: New York City is a 'plantation' [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller



Throughout history there have been folks who sought to divide people in order to accrue power.....
....they're called tyrants.





I suspect that the brighter Liberals are shaking their heads, muttering 'What have we done...."

The rest of the nation knows what you've done.

Do you not realize that you lack a basic understanding of definitions of words. Seriously, define communism and tell me how it relates to the bullshit you are talking about.

"Do you not realize that you lack a basic understanding......"

Billy000IQ....This is so jaw-dropping, I mean coming from a certifiable moron...

Maybe its 'BillyOOOblivious.




The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.






...I could almost give you a rep.....you know what.....I will!

 

[Truthmatters]

she thinks people are BAD.


she has posted crap saying so.

she thinks most humans are NOT good

 

[PoliticalChic]

she thinks people are BAD.


she has posted crap saying so.

she thinks most humans are NOT good

They aren't.

That's the reason why our founding documents are based on checks and balances.

The French Revolution was based on people being good by nature, so all power could be put in the hands of a dictator.

"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century."
French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror



But, heck....really good to see you back.
I missed you!
I was looking to send a rep, but I see you've declined same. Too bad.

I have soooooo much to teach you..
Welcome back.

 

[thereisnospoon]

she thinks people are BAD.


she has posted crap saying so.

she thinks most humans are NOT good

Gee look who is back....
The leader of "Stupid"

 

[thereisnospoon]

she thinks people are BAD.


she has posted crap saying so.

she thinks most humans are NOT good

They aren't.

That's the reason why our founding documents are based on checks and balances.

The French Revolution was based on people being good by nature, so all power could be put in the hands of a dictator.

"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century."
French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror



But, heck....really good to see you back.
I missed you!
I was looking to send a rep, but I see you've declined same. Too bad.

I have soooooo much to teach you..
Welcome back.

Please do not bother explaining things to TM..
The little doggie in the avatar is smarter than the one typing.

 

[jasonnfree]

"America isn't a failed socialist state, it's a failed capitalist state. Case in point, the housing meltdown...."

What a dope.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.
He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy

3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA
Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.
Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

There are a number of problems with this post.

1) The State has always meddled in the market, and most of it has been to protect the interests of the Capitalist (through subsidies, bailouts, Patent Protection, legal protection of private property, legal administration of contracts, R&D support, military protection of overseas supply chains and regulatory favors that deliver competitive advantages. Again, you need to study lobbying and investigate how much money our capitalists suck from the State Sector. American Capitalism has always been heavily state dependent. The Free Market that Austrian Economists dream of is as utopian as Marx's Communist State. Neither has ever happened, and the capitalist doesn't want it to happen. Exxon wants the State to protect its oil fields in the Middle East. Big Telecom wants the satellite technology that came out of the Cold War Pentagon and NASA programs. Big Pharma wants nanny state patent protection against foreign and generic drug competitors. Every fucking business in the Southwest wants the energy/water that comes from harnessing the Colorado River via things like the Hoover Dam. The profit makers have always sucked at the teat of the Nanny State - from DAY ONE. And they've always cultivated a small but vocal collection of useful idiots who spread anti-government propaganda in hopes that the resultant cynicism will decrease citizen participation so that they can continue to loot the treasury, uncontested. It's a fucking hoax).

2) Ahhh, the blame game. Democrats are attacked for merely whispering Bush's name, yet your side has created an industry of blaming FDR and Carter, one of whom has been dead longer than most of us have been alive. This is the most hilarious double standard I have ever seen. You must be kidding with this stuff. Fannie/Freddie and the CRA were in place when the US Housing Market endured its most stable period. The stability lasted until ….

3) Bush 43 empowered Fannie/Freddie more than Carter/Clinton/Dodd could have ever dreamed. Please watch this video. Bush not only sketches his plan for using the power of Fannie to put poor people in homes, but he obliterates all the sensible lending regulations that were upheld by every administration prior. Check out what Bush does RE down-payments, which he erases. Watch the video and listen the most aggressive plan for expanding home ownership in America's history. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8]Home Ownership and President Bush - YouTube[/ame] Bush fueled a dead economy by loaning trillions of dollars into it on the backs of morons.

4) Fannie/Freddie represents a small portion of the problem. Everybody got in the game - it was global. The number of private mortgage and financial companies that got in the game is in the 1000s - and they all realized unprecedented wealth as the bubble grew . . . but it gets worse because many of them cashed in by strategically hedging the crash. Wall Street placed trillions of dollars of criminally insane bets on bad mortgages, many of which their partners underwrote, and then [wait for it] they created a trillion dollar industry insuring garbage that they were secretly betting against, and then [wait for it] they didn't have the money to cover losses on insurance products that gave them dynastic wealth, and then [wait for it] they got bailed out by the very Government which your side claims is oppressing them with taxes and regulations. Are you fucking kidding?

But seriously: nobody forced private Wall Street firms to generate billions of dollars in profits off a corruptly inflated housing bubble. Nobody forced them to create an entire industry of securities & derivatives from mortgage products that they had every opportunity to evaluate but simply didn't (perhaps because they - the private sector - own government and its bailout powers). Stop telling us that the State Oppresses business. Business owns the state and staffs government through election funding. This is why business gets subsidies for its operating costs . . . and patent protection for its products . . . and bailouts when shit goes bad.

ALSO: It's one thing for your neighbor to buy a house he can't afford, but it's quite another for private corporations to voluntarily place over twenty trillion dollars of securities & derivative bets on his loan. We were told to trust Wall Street's criminally flawed risk models because they were the financial innovators. We were told that Private Financial Firms (Lehman, Bear, Merrill, Morgan, Goldman) didn't need to be regulated by big brother because of Adam Smith's Homo Economicus, that is, rational self interest would ensure that our corporations would protect their investors. But, look what we got for our faith in Homo Economicus. Secondly, the pressure to create all those mortgages didn't come from a fully absorbed piece of 1977 legislation; rather, it came from Wall Street, which turned those mortgages into the largest and most criminal money making scheme in the history of our nation. To put this whole thing on Fannie/Freddie without mentioning the risk-management-failures of the big Wall Street financials is completely fucking insane. [My fear is that you don't even know what I'm talking about because your information sources never explained the relationship between the mortgage industry and the Wall Street financials]

Alas, I have to agree with some of your points.

5) Despite the fact that Reagan is credited for the great wave of deregulation that moved government out of the way so our innovative capitalists could lift all our boats . . . Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are 100% guilty of furthering the deregulation movement. Carter made it much easier for banks to set their own lending limits. He trusted private business to regulate their own risk. He didn't think the government had the information or incentive to be so heavily involved on the investment side of banking. He opened the door to the S&Ls, and Reagan doubled down. (Carter also deregulated Communications and Transportation, which worked far better than the deregulation of finance). Clinton acquiesced to Phil Graham and removed FDR's Glass-Stegall ACT, which prevented Commercial and Investment banks from merging and thereby exposing deposits ("savings") to speculative risk. Once they removed FDR's primary financial regulation, it allowed the big Wall Street financials to bet the savings of an entire generation on the most speculative housing bubble in world history. Clinton, like Reagan and Greenspan, believed that rational capitalists should be left alone to place whatever bets they want and that rational self interest would do the best job protecting the consumer. Who knew they would use these new financial freedoms to set up the largest ponzi scheme in our lifetime? But yes, both parties are absolutely guilty. I would just caution you against over-focusing on Fannie/Freddie, and under reporting Bush's very large role.

Lastly, you're right. Our system has none of the small market virtues imagined by Smith, who died long before corporations grew large enough to buy multiple governments.

Fannie Freddie was THE problem.
IOn 2003 this was known. Frank, Dodd and Watt as well as maxine Watters were warned this thing combined with CRA rules was about to spin out of control. These people protected the programs insisting that the less fortunate deserved a fair chance at the American dream of home ownership. They forced lenders to comply but extended a carrot on the end of a stick by promising the loans, should they default, would be backed up by government. Not only that, Washington had rules that made it possible to package up mortgages so brokers and banks could sell them as investment vehicles.
Hundreds of billions in home loans were traded, sold and resold. Everybody was doing it.
The last ones in line where the large brokerage houses like Goldman Sachs and others. They ended up holding the paper.
Everybody was making money. Until.......The loans to the highest risk buyers became too much for them to handle. Suddenly banks were seeing a flood of foreclosures. People who enjoyed low payments for the first 24-36 months found the payments unaffordable.
They literally walked away from their homes. As the paper became worthless, the whole thing collapsed. The economy went right with it. Unemployment went to the moon. The race to the bottom was on.

A lender hasn't been found yet that was forced by the big bad government to ok a loan based on an applicant's stated but unverified income and you won't be able to come up with one either. Loans were being made and repackaged and resold while the getting was good. Fannie and freddie didn't have near the market share as the private market either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

she thinks people are BAD.


she has posted crap saying so.

she thinks most humans are NOT good

They aren't.

That's the reason why our founding documents are based on checks and balances.

The French Revolution was based on people being good by nature, so all power could be put in the hands of a dictator.

"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century."
French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror



But, heck....really good to see you back.
I missed you!
I was looking to send a rep, but I see you've declined same. Too bad.

I have soooooo much to teach you..
Welcome back.

Please do not bother explaining things to TM..
The little doggie in the avatar is smarter than the one typing.

I know it's wrong to gossip....but, I'm laughing so hard I have to tell this:
Yesterday, Ms. Truthie was complaining that I'm Asian and have a blonde avi.....so a poster named Norwegan wrote to her "So, you're a dog?"

I can't stop laughing......it was classic!

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are a number of problems with this post.

1) The State has always meddled in the market, and most of it has been to protect the interests of the Capitalist (through subsidies, bailouts, Patent Protection, legal protection of private property, legal administration of contracts, R&D support, military protection of overseas supply chains and regulatory favors that deliver competitive advantages. Again, you need to study lobbying and investigate how much money our capitalists suck from the State Sector. American Capitalism has always been heavily state dependent. The Free Market that Austrian Economists dream of is as utopian as Marx's Communist State. Neither has ever happened, and the capitalist doesn't want it to happen. Exxon wants the State to protect its oil fields in the Middle East. Big Telecom wants the satellite technology that came out of the Cold War Pentagon and NASA programs. Big Pharma wants nanny state patent protection against foreign and generic drug competitors. Every fucking business in the Southwest wants the energy/water that comes from harnessing the Colorado River via things like the Hoover Dam. The profit makers have always sucked at the teat of the Nanny State - from DAY ONE. And they've always cultivated a small but vocal collection of useful idiots who spread anti-government propaganda in hopes that the resultant cynicism will decrease citizen participation so that they can continue to loot the treasury, uncontested. It's a fucking hoax).

2) Ahhh, the blame game. Democrats are attacked for merely whispering Bush's name, yet your side has created an industry of blaming FDR and Carter, one of whom has been dead longer than most of us have been alive. This is the most hilarious double standard I have ever seen. You must be kidding with this stuff. Fannie/Freddie and the CRA were in place when the US Housing Market endured its most stable period. The stability lasted until ….

3) Bush 43 empowered Fannie/Freddie more than Carter/Clinton/Dodd could have ever dreamed. Please watch this video. Bush not only sketches his plan for using the power of Fannie to put poor people in homes, but he obliterates all the sensible lending regulations that were upheld by every administration prior. Check out what Bush does RE down-payments, which he erases. Watch the video and listen the most aggressive plan for expanding home ownership in America's history. Home Ownership and President Bush - YouTube Bush fueled a dead economy by loaning trillions of dollars into it on the backs of morons.

4) Fannie/Freddie represents a small portion of the problem. Everybody got in the game - it was global. The number of private mortgage and financial companies that got in the game is in the 1000s - and they all realized unprecedented wealth as the bubble grew . . . but it gets worse because many of them cashed in by strategically hedging the crash. Wall Street placed trillions of dollars of criminally insane bets on bad mortgages, many of which their partners underwrote, and then [wait for it] they created a trillion dollar industry insuring garbage that they were secretly betting against, and then [wait for it] they didn't have the money to cover losses on insurance products that gave them dynastic wealth, and then [wait for it] they got bailed out by the very Government which your side claims is oppressing them with taxes and regulations. Are you fucking kidding?

But seriously: nobody forced private Wall Street firms to generate billions of dollars in profits off a corruptly inflated housing bubble. Nobody forced them to create an entire industry of securities & derivatives from mortgage products that they had every opportunity to evaluate but simply didn't (perhaps because they - the private sector - own government and its bailout powers). Stop telling us that the State Oppresses business. Business owns the state and staffs government through election funding. This is why business gets subsidies for its operating costs . . . and patent protection for its products . . . and bailouts when shit goes bad.

ALSO: It's one thing for your neighbor to buy a house he can't afford, but it's quite another for private corporations to voluntarily place over twenty trillion dollars of securities & derivative bets on his loan. We were told to trust Wall Street's criminally flawed risk models because they were the financial innovators. We were told that Private Financial Firms (Lehman, Bear, Merrill, Morgan, Goldman) didn't need to be regulated by big brother because of Adam Smith's Homo Economicus, that is, rational self interest would ensure that our corporations would protect their investors. But, look what we got for our faith in Homo Economicus. Secondly, the pressure to create all those mortgages didn't come from a fully absorbed piece of 1977 legislation; rather, it came from Wall Street, which turned those mortgages into the largest and most criminal money making scheme in the history of our nation. To put this whole thing on Fannie/Freddie without mentioning the risk-management-failures of the big Wall Street financials is completely fucking insane. [My fear is that you don't even know what I'm talking about because your information sources never explained the relationship between the mortgage industry and the Wall Street financials]

Alas, I have to agree with some of your points.

5) Despite the fact that Reagan is credited for the great wave of deregulation that moved government out of the way so our innovative capitalists could lift all our boats . . . Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are 100% guilty of furthering the deregulation movement. Carter made it much easier for banks to set their own lending limits. He trusted private business to regulate their own risk. He didn't think the government had the information or incentive to be so heavily involved on the investment side of banking. He opened the door to the S&Ls, and Reagan doubled down. (Carter also deregulated Communications and Transportation, which worked far better than the deregulation of finance). Clinton acquiesced to Phil Graham and removed FDR's Glass-Stegall ACT, which prevented Commercial and Investment banks from merging and thereby exposing deposits ("savings") to speculative risk. Once they removed FDR's primary financial regulation, it allowed the big Wall Street financials to bet the savings of an entire generation on the most speculative housing bubble in world history. Clinton, like Reagan and Greenspan, believed that rational capitalists should be left alone to place whatever bets they want and that rational self interest would do the best job protecting the consumer. Who knew they would use these new financial freedoms to set up the largest ponzi scheme in our lifetime? But yes, both parties are absolutely guilty. I would just caution you against over-focusing on Fannie/Freddie, and under reporting Bush's very large role.

Lastly, you're right. Our system has none of the small market virtues imagined by Smith, who died long before corporations grew large enough to buy multiple governments.

Fannie Freddie was THE problem.
IOn 2003 this was known. Frank, Dodd and Watt as well as maxine Watters were warned this thing combined with CRA rules was about to spin out of control. These people protected the programs insisting that the less fortunate deserved a fair chance at the American dream of home ownership. They forced lenders to comply but extended a carrot on the end of a stick by promising the loans, should they default, would be backed up by government. Not only that, Washington had rules that made it possible to package up mortgages so brokers and banks could sell them as investment vehicles.
Hundreds of billions in home loans were traded, sold and resold. Everybody was doing it.
The last ones in line where the large brokerage houses like Goldman Sachs and others. They ended up holding the paper.
Everybody was making money. Until.......The loans to the highest risk buyers became too much for them to handle. Suddenly banks were seeing a flood of foreclosures. People who enjoyed low payments for the first 24-36 months found the payments unaffordable.
They literally walked away from their homes. As the paper became worthless, the whole thing collapsed. The economy went right with it. Unemployment went to the moon. The race to the bottom was on.

A lender hasn't been found yet that was forced by the big bad government to ok a loan based on an applicant's stated but unverified income and you won't be able to come up with one either. Loans were being made and repackaged and resold while the getting was good. Fannie and freddie didn't have near the market share as the private market either.

Wrong again, O-Ignorant One!


a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

e. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”

i. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009

 

[regent]

PC's concept that human-kind are not good, has touched on one of the core beliefs of conservatives and liberals. The idea that man is evil and a few more core beliefs added, gives conservatives the background for much of conservative issues. This core belief is expressed over and over in different ways by posters, by politicians and most people with political views. Another core belief might be there are superior and inferior people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC's concept that human-kind are not good, has touched on one of the core beliefs of conservatives and liberals. The idea that man is evil and a few more core beliefs added, gives conservatives the background for much of conservative issues. This core belief is expressed over and over in different ways by posters, by politicians and most people with political views. Another core belief might be there are superior and inferior people.

The problem is your understanding.

'Not good by nature' does not mean man is 'evil by nature'. Simply that self-interest is the driving motivation.

Your misunderstanding is more to the point of understanding Liberals and conservatives: by lacking that understanding, you cannot conceive of the need for checks and balances.


The founders understood same, because they were classical liberals...what we call conservatives today.

I direct you to Federalist #51:
“Let ambition counteract ambition.” Conflicting interests would neutralize one another, checking abuses of power.

And this:
"It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither internal nor external controls on government would be necessary."



The Liberal view that people are good by their human nature is why they are copacetic with allowing tyrants to accrue all power, and are just fine with totalitarian regimes.

 

[Truthmatters]

They aren't.

That's the reason why our founding documents are based on checks and balances.

The French Revolution was based on people being good by nature, so all power could be put in the hands of a dictator.

"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century."
French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror



But, heck....really good to see you back.
I missed you!
I was looking to send a rep, but I see you've declined same. Too bad.

I have soooooo much to teach you..
Welcome back.

Please do not bother explaining things to TM..
The little doggie in the avatar is smarter than the one typing.

I know it's wrong to gossip....but, I'm laughing so hard I have to tell this:
Yesterday, Ms. Truthie was complaining that I'm Asian and have a blonde avi.....so a poster named Norwegan wrote to her "So, you're a dog?"

I can't stop laughing......it was classic!

yes because your just that stupid



you actually think there are people who think dogs type


you actually think there are no female Asian superheros?

why did you choose a blonde one?

 

[1776]

De Blasio is a terrible thing for the Democraps just like Obama.

He will run NYC into the ground and people across the US will see it since NYC is sold as "America's city." Maybe the Today show will move to avid the filth.

When Wall Street loses some heavy hitters because De Blasio taxes them to death, people will notice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please do not bother explaining things to TM..
The little doggie in the avatar is smarter than the one typing.

I know it's wrong to gossip....but, I'm laughing so hard I have to tell this:
Yesterday, Ms. Truthie was complaining that I'm Asian and have a blonde avi.....so a poster named Norwegan wrote to her "So, you're a dog?"

I can't stop laughing......it was classic!

yes because your just that stupid



you actually think there are people who think dogs type


you actually think there are no female Asian superheros?

why did you choose a blonde one?

Treat?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug_iluxQ1IQ]It's Beggin Time - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Truthmatters]

You have NO idea why you picked a blonde one huh?

why didn't you just pick superman?

because he didn't reflect your femaleness huh?

gee why did you stop there?

 

[Truthmatters]

De Blasio is a terrible thing for the Democraps just like Obama.

He will run NYC into the ground and people across the US will see it since NYC is sold as "America's city." Maybe the Today show will move to avid the filth.

When Wall Street loses some heavy hitters because De Blasio taxes them to death, people will notice.

well you fools still pretend Bush didn't crash the entire world economy so you don't go by facts.

when has ANY prediction on the outcome of policy you made come true?


NEVER

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have NO idea why you picked a blonde one huh?

why didn't you just pick superman?

because he didn't reflect your femaleness huh?

gee why did you stop there?

What are the chances that I'll let you determine what subject, style, or avi I select?

I am immovable, like General Jackson’s Virginians at First Manassas: a veritable stone wall. If you only had an acquaintance with history…you’d understand that.

You should consider me akin to Pavlov's cats.

 

[Jackson]

The essential point of the OP was that the shameful speech by Reverend Lucas, and endorsed by Communist/Liberal/Democrat DeBlasio was designed to divide rather than bring the races together.

And, central to the theme, as seen in the title, was that sensible Liberals agree that it was a shameful display.

I also pointed out that those were the brighter Liberals who found it so.


Sure enough, the comments, and lack of comment, by Liberals in this thread proved my very point:
we have some of the stupidest Liberals in the nation right here on this very board.

I find that rhetoric used by Lucas more than shameful, I find it shocking. I can't imagine anyone condoning that speech six years ago. It just seems slowly through the years that some have found that type of speech acceptable and I believe it is due to our racist commander in chief.

 

[PoliticalChic]

De Blasio is a terrible thing for the Democraps just like Obama.

He will run NYC into the ground and people across the US will see it since NYC is sold as "America's city." Maybe the Today show will move to avid the filth.

When Wall Street loses some heavy hitters because De Blasio taxes them to death, people will notice.

well you fools still pretend Bush didn't crash the entire world economy so you don't go by facts.

when has ANY prediction on the outcome of policy you made come true?


NEVER

"...well you fools still pretend Bush didn't crash the entire world economy..."

C'mon....admit it: you know it was Democrat/Liberal/socialist policies that caused the prob.

 

[Jackson]

You have NO idea why you picked a blonde one huh?

why didn't you just pick superman?

because he didn't reflect your femaleness huh?

gee why did you stop there?

Quit trying to knock PC. She is so out if your league, there is no use.

Just sit back, read and admire her wit, use of the language, knowledge of history, philosophy and even economics. To debate is a lost cause and fodder for her barnstorming against you. Stop being a push over.