Democrats on Freddie and Fannie

[DiveCon]

y'all do recognize this re-infusion of taxpayer dollars is to cover the bad investments Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made ... government backed gambles, 'heads i win, tails you lose', is a better description. only a fraction of the GSE losses resulted from declines in their conforming loan portfolios
just another example where the profits are privatized and the losses were socialized

and your point is?

well the topic IS

Democrats on Freddie and Fannie

that it was not the fannie mae and freddie mac lending that got those organizations in trouble, such that the government had to bail it out
it was bad investments in derivatives, over-rated securitized mortgages and bad futures gambles that caused the GSEs to be upside down
just like freeing the government backed banks to do things outside the lending arena, but still having the backing of uncle sugar
profits were massive for the principles during the manufactured good times
and when the losses came, only the taxpayers took it on the chin
this will soon be recognized as the world's largest swindle. the shrub was too dumb to know it

i can't do dot-to-dot on this board. apologies for being unable to present in a medium more familiar to you

thanks for exposing yourself as just another partisan hack

 

[justabubba]

and your point is?

well the topic IS

Democrats on Freddie and Fannie

that it was not the fannie mae and freddie mac lending that got those organizations in trouble, such that the government had to bail it out
it was bad investments in derivatives, over-rated securitized mortgages and bad futures gambles that caused the GSEs to be upside down
just like freeing the government backed banks to do things outside the lending arena, but still having the backing of uncle sugar
profits were massive for the principles during the manufactured good times
and when the losses came, only the taxpayers took it on the chin
this will soon be recognized as the world's largest swindle. the shrub was too dumb to know it

i can't do dot-to-dot on this board. apologies for being unable to present in a medium more familiar to you

thanks for exposing yourself as just another partisan hack

so, you are one of those who is fond of kool aid while avoiding the truth
actually, i knew that about you from reading your first poorly scribbled post
please don't stop. i am easily amused by the musings of weak minds

 

[jreeves]

well the topic IS
that it was not the fannie mae and freddie mac lending that got those organizations in trouble, such that the government had to bail it out
it was bad investments in derivatives, over-rated securitized mortgages and bad futures gambles that caused the GSEs to be upside down
just like freeing the government backed banks to do things outside the lending arena, but still having the backing of uncle sugar
profits were massive for the principles during the manufactured good times
and when the losses came, only the taxpayers took it on the chin
this will soon be recognized as the world's largest swindle. the shrub was too dumb to know it

i can't do dot-to-dot on this board. apologies for being unable to present in a medium more familiar to you

Sorry I don't interpret Idiot, maybe next time you could write in coherent sentences with a point?

ok. i will start typing slower so that you can keep up

Speed isn't the issue, it's the thought that goes behind what is actually being typed that is important.

 

[elvis]

I think it was the repealing of the Glass-Steagall act by Clinton that caused the meltdown. Does anyone know if they are putting that back in place?

clinton's bill eh?
why did it carry the name of its republican authors:

Graham-Leach-Biley Act of 1999

let's see how veto-proof that "clinton" bill was:

The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting).

clearly, this was not something to lay at clinton's feet. hell, monica would have been in the way

i do believe that glass-steagall will be re-implemented. it was but a part of the multi-faceted reasons of the meltdown. if we seek to identify the singular cause, that would have to be the opportunity given over to wealthy people to exploit incompetent governance

any bill, regardless of the authors needs the President's signature, which they got. I am not defending the republicans here, I only get tired of everyone blaming this meltdown on the republicans, when it started under clinton, and was helped along by Dodd and emanuel.
As for the veto, I appreciate you posting that figure. It shows there were indeed dems who supported this. clinton's hand was not forced, either. He was in favor of this bill.

 

[DiveCon]

well the topic IS
that it was not the fannie mae and freddie mac lending that got those organizations in trouble, such that the government had to bail it out
it was bad investments in derivatives, over-rated securitized mortgages and bad futures gambles that caused the GSEs to be upside down
just like freeing the government backed banks to do things outside the lending arena, but still having the backing of uncle sugar
profits were massive for the principles during the manufactured good times
and when the losses came, only the taxpayers took it on the chin
this will soon be recognized as the world's largest swindle. the shrub was too dumb to know it

i can't do dot-to-dot on this board. apologies for being unable to present in a medium more familiar to you

thanks for exposing yourself as just another partisan hack

so, you are one of those who is fond of kool aid while avoiding the truth
actually, i knew that about you from the your first poorly scribbled post
please don't stop. i am easily amused by the musings of weak minds

no, you have shown that is you
you drink the DNC koolaid by the gallon

 

[DiveCon]

I think it was the repealing of the Glass-Steagall act by Clinton that caused the meltdown. Does anyone know if they are putting that back in place?

clinton's bill eh?
why did it carry the name of its republican authors:

let's see how veto-proof that "clinton" bill was:

The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting).

clearly, this was not something to lay at clinton's feet. hell, monica would have been in the way

i do believe that glass-steagall will be re-implemented. it was but a part of the multi-faceted reasons of the meltdown. if we seek to identify the singular cause, that would have to be the opportunity given over to wealthy people to exploit incompetent governance

any bill, regardless of the authors needs the President's signature, which they got. I am not defending the republicans here, I only get tired of everyone blaming this meltdown on the republicans, when it started under clinton, and was helped along by Dodd and emanuel.
As for the veto, I appreciate you posting that figure. It shows there were indeed dems who supported this. clinton's hand was not forced, either. He was in favor of this bill.

both party's are responsible

but partisan hacks want to only blame one of them

 

[jreeves]

clinton's bill eh?
why did it carry the name of its republican authors:

let's see how veto-proof that "clinton" bill was:


clearly, this was not something to lay at clinton's feet. hell, monica would have been in the way

i do believe that glass-steagall will be re-implemented. it was but a part of the multi-faceted reasons of the meltdown. if we seek to identify the singular cause, that would have to be the opportunity given over to wealthy people to exploit incompetent governance

any bill, regardless of the authors needs the President's signature, which they got. I am not defending the republicans here, I only get tired of everyone blaming this meltdown on the republicans, when it started under clinton, and was helped along by Dodd and emanuel.
As for the veto, I appreciate you posting that figure. It shows there were indeed dems who supported this. clinton's hand was not forced, either. He was in favor of this bill.

both party's are responsible

but partisan hacks want to only blame one of them

Yes the point of the post was to show the hypocrisy on the part of Democrats who want to lay the blame solely on Republicans. When in fact they were touting the stable footing of Fannie and Freddie just a couple of years prior to the complete meltdown.

 

[Ame®icano]

Just to get it straight. You are saying it's not Clinton's responsibility, but Congress that voted on it.

clinton's bill eh?
why did it carry the name of its republican authors:

So when asked about $11T US debt, Obama said "It wasn't me", that would mean it's responsibility of those who voted for it, and NOT of one who has signed it. Right?

 

[American Horse]

y'all do recognize this re-infusion of taxpayer dollars is to cover the bad investments Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made ... government backed gambles, 'heads i win, tails you lose', is a better description. only a fraction of the GSE losses resulted from declines in their conforming loan portfolios
just another example where the profits are privatized and the losses were socialized

and your point is?

well the topic IS

Democrats on Freddie and Fannie

that it was not the fannie mae and freddie mac lending that got those organizations in trouble, such that the government had to bail it out
it was bad investments in derivatives, over-rated securitized mortgages and bad futures gambles that caused the GSEs to be upside down
just like freeing the government backed banks to do things outside the lending arena, but still having the backing of uncle sugar
profits were massive for the principles during the manufactured good times
and when the losses came, only the taxpayers took it on the chin this will soon be recognized as the world's largest swindle. the shrub was too dumb to know it

i can't do dot-to-dot on this board. apologies for being unable to present in a medium more familiar to you

It's a minor point bubba, but I feel that I must point out that the share holders of stock in Fannie and Freddie took it on the chin big-time. They were led to believe their investments would be underwritten by "uncle sugar" but today their shares are worth less than one cent on the dollar. My point is (like the shareholders of Chrysler bonds), don't count on uncle sugar; those who do you are bound to be disappointed.

 

[justabubba]

It's a minor point bubba, but I feel that I must point out that the share holders of stock in Fannie and Freddie took it on the chin big-time. They were led to believe their investments would be underwritten by "uncle sugar" but today their shares are worth less than one cent on the dollar. My point is (like the shareholders of Chrysler bonds), don't count on uncle sugar; those who do you are bound to be disappointed.

while i see your point, i can't agree with it
the shareholders failed to elect into positions of authority board members who would be good stewards of the company's fortunes. that a financial company could go so far south - despite having its losses covered by the taxpayer is an indication of the ineptitude of management. as Warren Buffet says, one should invest in the management of a company [paraphrased]
stockholders invested in bad management regards fannie mae and freddie mac

 

[Iriemon]

Some of these same idiots are now blaming everyone but themselves.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

You just saw this clip for the first time? Or are you bored and want to start the 397th thread on whose fault it was that F/F weren't supervised more?

The only bill passed (in 2005) to regulate Fannie/Freddie during the 6 years the Republicans controlled the government -- a bill the Barnie Frank and Dems joined to support -- was shot down by the Bush administration, according to its Republican sponsor.

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley [Then Republican Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services and sponsor of the Sarbanes-Oxely Act which provided oversight of public companies to prevent fraud after Enron], now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

FT.com / UK - Oxley hits back at ideologues[/QUOTE]

 

[Iriemon]

shhhh, your not supposed to know this

Nothing going on here. Don't you remember those evil greedy AIG executives and those evil Hedge fund executives?

It's all very simple: It's really the fault of greedy wall street financial CEO's and de-regulation by the Republicans, and, oh yes, of course the promotion of the Glass-Steagall Act being replaced by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act led by Republican Senator Phil Gramm and other Republicans which brought us the financial melt-down....That's the Democrat's and the MSM's story and their sticking to it.

And the real cause, Fanny and Freddy and the promotion by willing politicians, mostly Democrats but also some Republicans of sub-prime mortgage loans and their subsequent infection of the financial system world wide that.... well..... that's what will be forgotten; because it's just too complicated to be catch-phrased in words like "greedy wall street bankers" and "de-regulation crazed republicans"

Those who control the language win the argument. That's why debate today is called "bickering"; it's just another way of telling those who offer up difficult solutions to problems to "just shut up"

No one needed to promote subprimes - the financial institutions like Citi Merril and Countrywide were buying them up just as fast as brokers could churn the loans because they were profitable.

 

[Iriemon]

and your point is?

well the topic IS

Democrats on Freddie and Fannie

that it was not the fannie mae and freddie mac lending that got those organizations in trouble, such that the government had to bail it out
it was bad investments in derivatives, over-rated securitized mortgages and bad futures gambles that caused the GSEs to be upside down
just like freeing the government backed banks to do things outside the lending arena, but still having the backing of uncle sugar
profits were massive for the principles during the manufactured good times
and when the losses came, only the taxpayers took it on the chin
this will soon be recognized as the world's largest swindle. the shrub was too dumb to know it

i can't do dot-to-dot on this board. apologies for being unable to present in a medium more familiar to you

thanks for exposing yourself as just another partisan hack

Justa doesn't appear to me to be a partisan hack. He took the position that there was no Clinton surplus in another thread, which a "partisan hack" would not have done.

 

[Iriemon]

I think it was the repealing of the Glass-Steagall act by Clinton that caused the meltdown. Does anyone know if they are putting that back in place?

clinton's bill eh?
why did it carry the name of its republican authors:

let's see how veto-proof that "clinton" bill was:

The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting).

clearly, this was not something to lay at clinton's feet. hell, monica would have been in the way

i do believe that glass-steagall will be re-implemented. it was but a part of the multi-faceted reasons of the meltdown. if we seek to identify the singular cause, that would have to be the opportunity given over to wealthy people to exploit incompetent governance

any bill, regardless of the authors needs the President's signature, which they got. I am not defending the republicans here, I only get tired of everyone blaming this meltdown on the republicans, when it started under clinton, and was helped along by Dodd and emanuel.
As for the veto, I appreciate you posting that figure. It shows there were indeed dems who supported this. clinton's hand was not forced, either. He was in favor of this bill.

There is pleny of blame to go on both sides, but the OP wasn't blaming the Republicans but a clip blaming the Dems - as if it hadn't been posted 100 times before.

 

[Iriemon]

any bill, regardless of the authors needs the President's signature, which they got. I am not defending the republicans here, I only get tired of everyone blaming this meltdown on the republicans, when it started under clinton, and was helped along by Dodd and emanuel.
As for the veto, I appreciate you posting that figure. It shows there were indeed dems who supported this. clinton's hand was not forced, either. He was in favor of this bill.

both party's are responsible

but partisan hacks want to only blame one of them

Yes the point of the post was to show the hypocrisy on the part of Democrats who want to lay the blame solely on Republicans. When in fact they were touting the stable footing of Fannie and Freddie just a couple of years prior to the complete meltdown.

So you start a thread with a clip that wants to law the blame solely on the Dems. Makes sense.

 

[American Horse]

It's a minor point bubba, but I feel that I must point out that the share holders of stock in Fannie and Freddie took it on the chin big-time. They were led to believe their investments would be underwritten by "uncle sugar" but today their shares are worth less than one cent on the dollar. My point is (like the shareholders of Chrysler bonds), don't count on uncle sugar; those who do you are bound to be disappointed.

while i see your point, i can't agree with it
the shareholders failed to elect into positions of authority board members who would be good stewards of the company's fortunes. that a financial company could go so far south - despite having its losses covered by the taxpayer is an indication of the ineptitude of management. as Warren Buffet says, one should invest in the management of a company [paraphrased]
stockholders invested in bad management regards fannie mae and freddie mac

The share holders of F&F certainly did not hold that power, and Chrysler's losers were holders of Corporate Bonds, not stock-holders so that they, even if the majority of stock-holders could, they, as holders of Bonds, had virtually no power to share in the choosing of the boards of directors.
.

 

[jreeves]

both party's are responsible

but partisan hacks want to only blame one of them

Yes the point of the post was to show the hypocrisy on the part of Democrats who want to lay the blame solely on Republicans. When in fact they were touting the stable footing of Fannie and Freddie just a couple of years prior to the complete meltdown.

So you start a thread with a clip that wants to law the blame solely on the Dems. Makes sense.

It shows hypocrisy...

 

[justabubba]

It's a minor point bubba, but I feel that I must point out that the share holders of stock in Fannie and Freddie took it on the chin big-time. They were led to believe their investments would be underwritten by "uncle sugar" but today their shares are worth less than one cent on the dollar. My point is (like the shareholders of Chrysler bonds), don't count on uncle sugar; those who do you are bound to be disappointed.

while i see your point, i can't agree with it
the shareholders failed to elect into positions of authority board members who would be good stewards of the company's fortunes. that a financial company could go so far south - despite having its losses covered by the taxpayer is an indication of the ineptitude of management. as Warren Buffet says, one should invest in the management of a company [paraphrased]
stockholders invested in bad management regards fannie mae and freddie mac

The share holders of F&F certainly did not hold that power, and Chrysler's losers were holders of Corporate Bonds, not stock-holders so that they, even if the majority of stock-holders could, they, as holders of Bonds, had virtually no power to share in the choosing of the boards of directors..

caveat emptor
the shares of fannie mae and freddie mac were investments. don't put at risk what you cannot afford to lose. just because it has been going up in value is not a guarantee that it will continue to do so. those investors invested in a lemon ... much as those who did not have an understanding of the financial market while investing heavily in that sector

and the chrysler bond holders are in a different category. they were lenders. who chose a risky investment rather than a safe one. the potential gain was greater, but so were the potential losses - as they are now finding out. return IS a function of risk

buyer beware. stupid people place bets on things they do not understand and then are often too dim to recognize why they subsequently walk away empty handed. darwin was right

 

[Iriemon]

Yes the point of the post was to show the hypocrisy on the part of Democrats who want to lay the blame solely on Republicans. When in fact they were touting the stable footing of Fannie and Freddie just a couple of years prior to the complete meltdown.

So you start a thread with a clip that wants to law the blame solely on the Dems. Makes sense.

It shows hypocrisy...

You mean of Republicans blaming Dems for the housing crisis. Most of us realize it, but thanks for pointing it out again.

 

[jreeves]

So you start a thread with a clip that wants to law the blame solely on the Dems. Makes sense.

It shows hypocrisy...

You mean of Republicans blaming Dems for the housing crisis. Most of us realize it, but thanks for pointing it out again.

Yea sure....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAuOEdttjZQ[/ame]