Newt says reinstate Glass Steagal

[Toddsterpatriot]

Im going to leave now and do real world things.

I will be back to refute any futher lies you post.

Come back with a brain.
And proof for your claims.

I thank you for all your help in allowing these truths to get out.

You are helping me so much that Im begining to suspect you are a beard

You're welcome, I enjoy showing your idiocy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You still think mortgages weren't securitized under Glass Steagall?

Do you think they were?

Yes, billions and billions worth of mortgages were securitized under Glass Steagall.
Hundreds of billions.
Probably trillions.

And?

 

[8537]

Mortgage-Backed Securities existed long before Gramm-Leech passed. Freddie and Fannie originated the idea decades earlier in order to add liquidity to the housing market. The simple act of securitizing loans (or any other financial instrument) doesn't cause instability - quite the contrary, it promotes stability.

It was the upstream derivatives of those MBS's, and the inclusion of these in capital ratios, that killed financial institutions when the market turned. As their marked values declined, banks had to call in loans very quickly to cover ratios.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you think they were?

Yes, billions and billions worth of mortgages were securitized under Glass Steagall.
Hundreds of billions.
Probably trillions.

And?

And that makes the claims that MBS were a new creation........wrong.

Glad I could teach you something new.

 

[Truthmatters]

When brokers had to be liciensed by the SEC they got tht liciense by proving they knew all bout the products they sold. They had rules to abide by to retian their credentials.

When the SEC held up the broker rules for 8 years they created a situation where the lenders ( now able to sell securities unlike before GLBact passed) could hire whom ever they wanted to hire and then trained them too sell securities. These newly hired "brokers" had no test to take and no rules they had to live by.


THE BANKS got to deside how much their "brokers" would be allowed to know about what they were selling.


Most of the WORLD had NO idea there were now NO BROKER RULES.

How many of you here even KNEW there were NO BROKER RULES FOR 8 YEARS until I showed you this SEC release?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, billions and billions worth of mortgages were securitized under Glass Steagall.
Hundreds of billions.
Probably trillions.

And?

And that makes the claims that MBS were a new creation........wrong.

Glad I could teach you something new.

You are confused as usual. How were they same? You have lost this from the beginning.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And?

And that makes the claims that MBS were a new creation........wrong.

Glad I could teach you something new.

You are confused as usual. How were they same? You have lost this from the beginning.

MBS were first sold in the late 1960s, IIRC.
While Glass Steagall was in place.
Anything else I can help you understand?
Always glad to help.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that makes the claims that MBS were a new creation........wrong.

Glad I could teach you something new.

You are confused as usual. How were they same? You have lost this from the beginning.

MBS were first sold in the late 1960s, IIRC.
While Glass Steagall was in place.
Anything else I can help you understand?
Always glad to help.

What were the regulations? Can you point to them? Can you show they were relative to our discussion?

 

[Truthmatters]

they held up the broker rules because the banks wanted them to.

it was government collusion to prevent a legally passed law from policing the markets

 

[JoeB131]

Remember, though, Gingrich is a RINO.

Gingrich Calls GOP Budget "Right Wing Social Engineering"

Smell the fear.. Smell the fear of a thousand pairs of soiled Magic Underpants.

Now you are backing Newt?

I'll back anyone who isn't Romney. Even Obama.

But Newt looks like the best shot right now.

He's neck and neck with Romney in New Hampshire. Hey, remember how you went up and down saying we should call it a day if Romney wins New Hampshire, screw those other 49 states?

Well, what if he doesn't. What if you get a repeat of 2008, where Newt wins OH and then NH? No early Michigan primary to keep the Android from Kolob on life support this time.

 

[Toro]

He's neck and neck with Romney in New Hampshire. Hey, remember how you went up and down saying we should call it a day if Romney wins New Hampshire, screw those other 49 states?

That's one poll. A Bloomberg poll conducted a few days beforehand had Romney leading by 23 in NH, which is consistent with prior polling. So the Magellan poll really has to be confirmed by other polls before we can say with confidence that they are neck and neck.

BTW Perry was at 2% lol. And that IS consistent with prior polling.

 

[JoeB131]

He's neck and neck with Romney in New Hampshire. Hey, remember how you went up and down saying we should call it a day if Romney wins New Hampshire, screw those other 49 states?

That's one poll. A Bloomberg poll conducted a few days beforehand had Romney leading by 23 in NH, which is consistent with prior polling. So the Magellan poll really has to be confirmed by other polls before we can say with confidence that they are neck and neck.

BTW Perry was at 2% lol. And that IS consistent with prior polling.

Or maybe those other polls are suffering from confirmation bias.

Again, I think that Romney's support is like the Emperor's new clothes. Everyone says he's the "only credible candidate", and people believe that.

Until someone screams out "the EMPEROR'S NAKED!"

 

[Toro]

He's neck and neck with Romney in New Hampshire. Hey, remember how you went up and down saying we should call it a day if Romney wins New Hampshire, screw those other 49 states?

That's one poll. A Bloomberg poll conducted a few days beforehand had Romney leading by 23 in NH, which is consistent with prior polling. So the Magellan poll really has to be confirmed by other polls before we can say with confidence that they are neck and neck.

BTW Perry was at 2% lol. And that IS consistent with prior polling.

Or maybe those other polls are suffering from confirmation bias.

Again, I think that Romney's support is like the Emperor's new clothes. Everyone says he's the "only credible candidate", and people believe that.

Until someone screams out "the EMPEROR'S NAKED!"

If one thinks that all those other polls are biased except the only poll that agrees with one's own very deeply held beliefs, then someone is exhibiting massive confirmation bias, and its not the pollsters.

FTR Intrade still has Romney at a 70% chance of winning the nomination whereas Newt has jumped up to 12%, which is a bargain at this point IMHO. If I were inclined to bet on this thing - which I am not - I might buy the Newt contract and sell the Mitt contract, at least for a trade for when Newt gets up to 25 and Romney down to 50.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Smell the fear.. Smell the fear of a thousand pairs of soiled Magic Underpants.

Now you are backing Newt?

I'll back anyone who isn't Romney. Even Obama.

But Newt looks like the best shot right now.

He's neck and neck with Romney in New Hampshire. Hey, remember how you went up and down saying we should call it a day if Romney wins New Hampshire, screw those other 49 states?

Well, what if he doesn't. What if you get a repeat of 2008, where Newt wins OH and then NH? No early Michigan primary to keep the Android from Kolob on life support this time.

You continue to weave a pattern to decieve and get caught out as usual. I was talking about MR and the social values conservative candidates, which NG certainly is not.

Newt is far preferable to the scv wacks, but, no, he is not waging a war against an existential assault on Christendom either.

Mitt is preferable but Newt is also acceptable.

 

[JoeB131]

You continue to weave a pattern to decieve and get caught out as usual. I was talking about MR and the social values conservative candidates, which NG certainly is not.

Newt is far preferable to the scv wacks, but, no, he is not waging a war against an existential assault on Christendom either.

Mitt is preferable but Newt is also acceptable.

Oh, please guy, Mitt has been trying to pass himself off as a "social values Conservative" for the last five years now.

Except no one believes it for a moment.

And that's the problem he has. Except for the Mormons and the Wall Street Parasites who think happy days will be here again, no one is buying Mitt's BS.

I'm sure we'll see you find ways to attack Newt in the coming weeks.

Because you can't really define reasons why anyone should vote for Mittens.

 

[JoeB131]

That's one poll. A Bloomberg poll conducted a few days beforehand had Romney leading by 23 in NH, which is consistent with prior polling. So the Magellan poll really has to be confirmed by other polls before we can say with confidence that they are neck and neck.

BTW Perry was at 2% lol. And that IS consistent with prior polling.

Or maybe those other polls are suffering from confirmation bias.

Again, I think that Romney's support is like the Emperor's new clothes. Everyone says he's the "only credible candidate", and people believe that.

Until someone screams out "the EMPEROR'S NAKED!"

If one thinks that all those other polls are biased except the only poll that agrees with one's own very deeply held beliefs, then someone is exhibiting massive confirmation bias, and its not the pollsters.

FTR Intrade still has Romney at a 70% chance of winning the nomination whereas Newt has jumped up to 12%, which is a bargain at this point IMHO. If I were inclined to bet on this thing - which I am not - I might buy the Newt contract and sell the Mitt contract, at least for a trade for when Newt gets up to 25 and Romney down to 50.

If you aren't inclined to bet on it, why do you keep quoting it.

Again, 2008 was supposed to be Rudy vs. Hillary, and that didn't happen...

I'll admit, I don't know what will happen. Rationally, Romney is a piece of two-faced shit with a crazy religion, and the Republicans would be absolutely crazy to nominate him.

But the problem is, the GOP is saddled with this Washington Establishment that long ago forgot what real Americans are like.

I only go by one poll. I call it the Joe Poll.

When I've been enthusiastic about a candidate, he wins.

When I've been indifferent about a candidate, he loses.

Was very enthusiastic about Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. They won.

Didn't care for Bob Dole or John McCain that much. They lost. Still voted for them, but didn't even stay up to watch the results. Didn't really care that much.

Liked Bush's dad in 1988, but had lost confidence in him by 1992. (Still voted for him because Perot was crazy and Clinton was slimy.)

Romney would be a candidate I would be outright hostile to. So he'll probably lose.

 

[Toro]

Or maybe those other polls are suffering from confirmation bias.

Again, I think that Romney's support is like the Emperor's new clothes. Everyone says he's the "only credible candidate", and people believe that.

Until someone screams out "the EMPEROR'S NAKED!"

If one thinks that all those other polls are biased except the only poll that agrees with one's own very deeply held beliefs, then someone is exhibiting massive confirmation bias, and its not the pollsters.

FTR Intrade still has Romney at a 70% chance of winning the nomination whereas Newt has jumped up to 12%, which is a bargain at this point IMHO. If I were inclined to bet on this thing - which I am not - I might buy the Newt contract and sell the Mitt contract, at least for a trade for when Newt gets up to 25 and Romney down to 50.

If you aren't inclined to bet on it, why do you keep quoting it.

Again, 2008 was supposed to be Rudy vs. Hillary, and that didn't happen...

I'll admit, I don't know what will happen. Rationally, Romney is a piece of two-faced shit with a crazy religion, and the Republicans would be absolutely crazy to nominate him.

But the problem is, the GOP is saddled with this Washington Establishment that long ago forgot what real Americans are like.

I only go by one poll. I call it the Joe Poll.

When I've been enthusiastic about a candidate, he wins.

When I've been indifferent about a candidate, he loses.

Was very enthusiastic about Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. They won.

Didn't care for Bob Dole or John McCain that much. They lost. Still voted for them, but didn't even stay up to watch the results. Didn't really care that much.

Liked Bush's dad in 1988, but had lost confidence in him by 1992. (Still voted for him because Perot was crazy and Clinton was slimy.)

Romney would be a candidate I would be outright hostile to. So he'll probably lose.

I'm just pointing out that Newt has a better chance of winning than the market believes IMHO.

"President Gingrich" is not inconceivable.

 

[Truthmatters]

I Agree he has a chance at least as good as Romeny now.

If Newt can get the big money to switch to him by showing the TP people will vote for him then the big money would LOVE to have him.

Hes smart and has proven he stays bought when bought.

They love that

 

[Amelia]

I Agree he has a chance at least as good as Romeny now.

If Newt can get the big money to switch to him by showing the TP people will vote for him then the big money would LOVE to have him.

Hes smart and has proven he stays bought when bought.

They love that

Does Obama stay bought?

Obama lets people think they've bought him but then tells them to go back and read the contract and they realize that, no, the fine print says they never had him. He took the money but he doesn't owe them anything for it.

Then he and Immelt sit around and chuckle.

 

[Truthmatters]

bought by who?