Why Wall St. Is Deserting Obama

[MaggieMae]

Wall St. is going to embrace whoever they think is going to give them the most cheese, no different than an inner city welfare recipient.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

The inner city welfare recipient is not among the greatest means of innovation and job creation.

It is comments such as this that make one both laugh and then sit stunned at the implication of such vast ignorance...

It was a metaphor, stupid.

 

[bodecea]

I was mistaken in hearing that the Stock Market was up a few hundred points today, a day after Obama's speech....apparently.

 

[MaggieMae]

He tries to placate his fanatical Left Wing base too much. He tries to have his cake and eat it too. He gives these Corporations $Billions in Tax Payer Bailouts while at the same time calling them "Evil Corporations." Most Leftists i observe try to have it both ways on Wall Street issues. He just needs to stop sending Wall Street these mixed signals.

And how would you do that? A big slogan that says "I Love Wall Street and I Hate Main Street"??

 

[MaggieMae]

BIG DIFFERENCE.

The inner city welfare recipient is not among the greatest means of innovation and job creation.

It is comments such as this that make one both laugh and then sit stunned at the implication of such vast ignorance...

So you think corporate subsidies are needed? I thought you supported less government, I guess I truly was ignorant as to how you felt.

No - you are not understanding there pard.

I pointed out that corporations actually PRODUCE - innovation, jobs, wealth, etc. You can argue against corporate welfare and I would support said arguement. That is not what you did - either by intent or foolishness.

The "inner city welfare recipient" - what do they produce that is similar?

Nothing.

They're consumers, last time I looked.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

He tries to placate his fanatical Left Wing base too much.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....by negotiating-away The Public Option.

Yeah.....that makes sense.

​

 

[MaggieMae]

And how did the CRA cause a massive run-up in subprime loan origination at non-depository institutions?

I'm sure the fear of complaints from political race hustlers and poverty pimps, over lack of ability of some to come up with decent downstrokes and "red lining" of high risk neighborhoods, played into the mix.

But I guess negative externaities of political do-goodery aren't anywhere near as onerous, as those generated by people who're just out trying to turn a buck the best way they know how, huh ?

Can anybody translate that for me?

 

[MaggieMae]

Wall Street donated $700 million to Democrats in 2008, but the Dems did not come through, and they feel demonized. Wall Street has donated nearly $700 million to the Republicans for the 2010 year elections and now the republicans are reaping the benefits....because Wall Street thinks they will help them.

the Ferris wheel keeps turning, just like the money meant to influence keeps flowing.

Meanwhile, the unemployed continue to be unemployed because of greed. The greed which translates: "Until I'm assured I'm gonna get more, **** you."

Yeah...Unfortunately, that greedy epithet is being shouted by the likes of UAW, AFACME, NEA and AFT union goons, demanding that the feds bail out their poorly invested and administered pension funds.

Probably because those pension funds invested in the Wall Street mortage securities packages that brought down the rest of the economy.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

BIG DIFFERENCE.

The inner city welfare recipient is not among the greatest means of innovation and job creation.

It is comments such as this that make one both laugh and then sit stunned at the implication of such vast ignorance...

So you think corporate subsidies are needed? I thought you supported less government, I guess I truly was ignorant as to how you felt.

No - you are not understanding there pard.

I pointed out that corporations actually PRODUCE - innovation, jobs, wealth....

.....And BONU$E$.....don't forget about them!

​

 

[MaggieMae]

This old Globe article pretty much sums it up...

Good to see that Jeff Jacoby believes that minority = bad credit.

Now, perhaps you or the editorialist can explain how non-CRA institutions offered 80% or more of the worst sub-primes...and why the private sector was so eager to securitize these loans if they knew the government was somehow foisting them upon banks.

Why would AIG buy an MBS consisting of loans it knew the government forced upon an originator?

Like i said ....greed i guess....not much downside if the loans were going to be backed up by Frank's Fannie...

Yup, so who took advantage of whom? Investors who DID know how this game was being played also knew they were safe because the government would have no choice but to cover their asses. These are today's capitalists, boys and girls. The ones who are not looking out for anyone except their own kind. Wake up.

 

[uscitizen]

Whatever is good for Wall Street is good for America.
Am I the only one who remembers this right wing mantra?

 

[MaggieMae]

The raping of Chrysler Senior Secured Creditors, the extortion of BP, the takeover of the US auto industry, the takeover of US HealthCare were all just blips, but the Goldman suit! Wow! That's serious!

i might add that imo the strong arming of BP and an end around the civil courts to settle claims for amounts that were totally off the hook definitely put a scare into a LOT of industries who might otherwise invest in the US.

If you risk $20 or more Billion dollars to do something as difficult as drill an oil well on the bottom of the ocean all for an expected return of a few million $ the costs of doing business are simply too high.

And that happened just 3 weeks after Obama placed his stamp on expanding offshore drilling. Sending the message that any day the US could reverse policies completely changing your risk exposures by several magnitudes, regardless of the law....

Yeah Obama has chilled a lot of people who might have been fairly committed to doing business in the USA.

Only complete elimination of corporate taxes could overcome the damage Obama has done.

What corporate taxes?

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

How Exxon paid zero taxes in 2009

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Good to see that Jeff Jacoby believes that minority = bad credit.

Now, perhaps you or the editorialist can explain how non-CRA institutions offered 80% or more of the worst sub-primes...and why the private sector was so eager to securitize these loans if they knew the government was somehow foisting them upon banks.

Why would AIG buy an MBS consisting of loans it knew the government forced upon an originator?

Like i said ....greed i guess....not much downside if the loans were going to be backed up by Frank's Fannie...

Yup, so who took advantage of whom? Investors who DID know how this game was being played also knew they were safe because the government would have no choice but to cover their asses. These are today's capitalists, boys and girls. The ones who are not looking out for anyone except their own kind. Wake up.

Grow up. Investors will always try to make a buck.....and this was legal....thanks to the likes of liberal government manipulators like Blarney Frank... you lefties would never make it in the cutthroat capitalist business world....that's why you support leftie creeps like Frankenstein to coddle you...

It's only in the government world that one can support unreality....and now after destroying the housing market and the lives of millions Frankenstein finally admits his mistakes...gee, so big of him...this guy would have been mincemeat years ago in the real business world...but in government he gets away with it.... and speaking of taking advantage i wonder how much Franky raked in for himself during this goverment fiasco...

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."

...

Some would say Frank's mea culpa is politically motivated in advance of an election where bailout nation and big government are public enemies number one and two. Of course, poll after poll shows that the $150 billion Fan-Fred bailout, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates could rise to $400 billion, is detested by voters and taxpayers everywhere.

In fact, these failed government agencies are in such bad shape that they can't even pay Uncle Sam the dividends owed under the conservatorship deal reached two years ago. That's right. In order to pay a $1.8 billion dividend on Treasury department stock, Fan and Fred had to borrow $1.5 billion from — you guessed it — the Treasury.

Then there's this head-scratching detail: In an absolutely outrageous move last Christmas Eve, President Obama signed off on $42 million in bonuses for the top 12 Fannie and Freddie executives, including $6 million apiece for the two CEOs.

8-23-10
Barney Frank Comes Home To The Facts - IBD - Investors.com

 

[8537]

This old Globe article pretty much sums it up...

Good to see that Jeff Jacoby believes that minority = bad credit.

Now, perhaps you or the editorialist can explain how non-CRA institutions offered 80% or more of the worst sub-primes...and why the private sector was so eager to securitize these loans if they knew the government was somehow foisting them upon banks.

Why would AIG buy an MBS consisting of loans it knew the government forced upon an originator?

Like i said ....greed i guess....not much downside if the loans were going to be backed up by Frank's Fannie...

They weren't backed up by Fannie. These were private sector originations that Fannie wouldn't and couldn't buy because they were noncomforming, no-doc, NINJA loans, securitized into MBS --> CDO's in the private market.

 

[8537]

And how did the CRA cause a massive run-up in subprime loan origination at non-depository institutions?

I'm sure the fear of complaints from political race hustlers and poverty pimps, over lack of ability of some to come up with decent downstrokes and "red lining" of high risk neighborhoods, played into the mix.

But I guess negative externaities of political do-goodery aren't anywhere near as onerous, as those generated by people who're just out trying to turn a buck the best way they know how, huh ?

You think Ameriquest and Countrywide's non-CRA branch were offering up subprimes to minorities in formerly-redlined areas? Lol. That's ******* hilarious.

The subprime hucksters were making their fortunes off some of the wealthiest areas in America.

 

[Toro]

Most of the subprime loans were to middle and upper income buyers. Most of them were incurred in expensive areas. For example 90% of all mortgages written in San Diego in 2006 were subprime loans.

 

[8537]

Most of the subprime loans were to middle and upper income buyers. Most of them were incurred in expensive areas. For example 90% of all mortgages written in San Diego in 2006 were subprime loans.

The most toxic subprimes and the worst price runups (b/c the two are connected) occurred in traditionally "poor" "minority" neighborhoods such as Miami, Bradenton, Naples, and Las Vegas. hotbeds of poverty, I tell ya!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Good to see that Jeff Jacoby believes that minority = bad credit.

Now, perhaps you or the editorialist can explain how non-CRA institutions offered 80% or more of the worst sub-primes...and why the private sector was so eager to securitize these loans if they knew the government was somehow foisting them upon banks.

Why would AIG buy an MBS consisting of loans it knew the government forced upon an originator?

Like i said ....greed i guess....not much downside if the loans were going to be backed up by Frank's Fannie...

They weren't backed up by Fannie. These were private sector originations that Fannie wouldn't and couldn't buy because they were noncomforming, no-doc, NINJA loans, securitized into MBS --> CDO's in the private market.

many "liar" loans were indeed bought up by both Fanny and Fred...talking about it right here in the Huff-n-Puff Post...

In the mortgage industry, they are called "liar loans" _ mortgages approved without requiring proof of the borrower's income or assets. The worst of them earn the nickname "ninja loans," short for "no income, no job, and (no) assets."
....

Countrywide Financial Corp., now part of Bank of America Corp., was one of the top providers of liar loans. The company is now is paying the price. More than 12 percent of Countrywide's $25.4 billion in pick-a-payment loans are in default, and 83 percent had little or no documentation, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing last week.

Critics say Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which bought or guaranteed liar loans from lenders including Countrywide and IndyMac, should have stuck with traditional 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages.

"I personally think that they ventured beyond their mission," said Richard Smith, a mortgage broker in Chattanooga, Tenn. Because of their decision to back shakier loans, he said, "the home-buying public is going to have to pay."

Fannie and Freddie entered the market for risky loans just as they emerged from accounting scandals. At the time, Wall Street giants such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. were backing a growing share of ever-riskier loans, and both government-sponsored companies felt pressure to compete.

Freddie Mac wanted "to stay competitive in the market and take steps to preserve market share," spokesman Michael Cosgrove said.

Fannie Mae increased its purchases of liar mortgages "at the requests of many of our customers," according to spokesman Brian Faith.

Both companies also were able to use subprime and liar-loan investments to meet government-set affordable housing goals.

Now Fannie, Freddie and other mortgage investors are reviewing defaulted loans to see if lenders committed fraud. If they find enough evidence, they could force lenders to assume responsibility for losses.

But it's unclear how much money they might recover, especially from lenders that have gone under or been seized by the government.

8-08
"Liar Loans" Threaten To Prolong Mortgage Crisis

 

[8537]

Like i said ....greed i guess....not much downside if the loans were going to be backed up by Frank's Fannie...

They weren't backed up by Fannie. These were private sector originations that Fannie wouldn't and couldn't buy because they were noncomforming, no-doc, NINJA loans, securitized into MBS --> CDO's in the private market.

many "ninjas", etc. or "liar" loans were indeed bought up by both Fanny and Fred...talking about it right here in the Huff-n-Puff Post...

In the mortgage industry, they are called "liar loans" _ mortgages approved without requiring proof of the borrower's income or assets. The worst of them earn the nickname "ninja loans," short for "no income, no job, and (no) assets."
....

Countrywide Financial Corp., now part of Bank of America Corp., was one of the top providers of liar loans. The company is now is paying the price. More than 12 percent of Countrywide's $25.4 billion in pick-a-payment loans are in default, and 83 percent had little or no documentation, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing last week.

Critics say Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which bought or guaranteed liar loans from lenders including Countrywide and IndyMac, should have stuck with traditional 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages.

"I personally think that they ventured beyond their mission," said Richard Smith, a mortgage broker in Chattanooga, Tenn. Because of their decision to back shakier loans, he said, "the home-buying public is going to have to pay."

Fannie and Freddie entered the market for risky loans just as they emerged from accounting scandals. At the time, Wall Street giants such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. were backing a growing share of ever-riskier loans, and both government-sponsored companies felt pressure to compete.

Freddie Mac wanted "to stay competitive in the market and take steps to preserve market share," spokesman Michael Cosgrove said.

Fannie Mae increased its purchases of liar mortgages "at the requests of many of our customers," according to spokesman Brian Faith.

Both companies also were able to use subprime and liar-loan investments to meet government-set affordable housing goals.

Now Fannie, Freddie and other mortgage investors are reviewing defaulted loans to see if lenders committed fraud. If they find enough evidence, they could force lenders to assume responsibility for losses.

But it's unclear how much money they might recover, especially from lenders that have gone under or been seized by the government.

8-08
"Liar Loans" Threaten To Prolong Mortgage Crisis

Fannie and Freddie could not buy the most toxic loans - NINJA's, for example. They could only buy conforming loans. The most toxic loans were sold, converted to AAA MBS's and resold in the private market. FM and FM could certainly buy liar loans. That's why they are called Liar loans.

Fannie and Freddie also participated in buying these repackaged AAA securities, of course - just like all the other market participants.

 

[loosecannon]

The raping of Chrysler Senior Secured Creditors, the extortion of BP, the takeover of the US auto industry, the takeover of US HealthCare were all just blips, but the Goldman suit! Wow! That's serious!

i might add that imo the strong arming of BP and an end around the civil courts to settle claims for amounts that were totally off the hook definitely put a scare into a LOT of industries who might otherwise invest in the US.

If you risk $20 or more Billion dollars to do something as difficult as drill an oil well on the bottom of the ocean all for an expected return of a few million $ the costs of doing business are simply too high.

And that happened just 3 weeks after Obama placed his stamp on expanding offshore drilling. Sending the message that any day the US could reverse policies completely changing your risk exposures by several magnitudes, regardless of the law....

Yeah Obama has chilled a lot of people who might have been fairly committed to doing business in the USA.

Only complete elimination of corporate taxes could overcome the damage Obama has done.

What corporate taxes?

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

How Exxon paid zero taxes in 2009

your article was full of weasel words.

According to this
United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporations paid $147 billion in Federal taxes in 2009, a recessionary year. They additionally paid state taxes.

Whereas half the citizens of the US paid $0 in federal tax in 2009, and of those the majority received some kind of federal government direct subsidy, like food stamps, $8000 remittance for signing a mortgage, cash for clunkers etc.

Globalization pits nations against one anther in a competition to attract corporations and foreign investment.

We can't afford to reduce our incomes to become competitive with Chinese labor. And we can't afford to open up the kind of duty free zone that Dubai can.

But we can afford to eliminate corporate taxes. They are only 7% of our revenues anyway.

 

[8537]

i might add that imo the strong arming of BP and an end around the civil courts to settle claims for amounts that were totally off the hook definitely put a scare into a LOT of industries who might otherwise invest in the US.

If you risk $20 or more Billion dollars to do something as difficult as drill an oil well on the bottom of the ocean all for an expected return of a few million $ the costs of doing business are simply too high.

And that happened just 3 weeks after Obama placed his stamp on expanding offshore drilling. Sending the message that any day the US could reverse policies completely changing your risk exposures by several magnitudes, regardless of the law....

Yeah Obama has chilled a lot of people who might have been fairly committed to doing business in the USA.

Only complete elimination of corporate taxes could overcome the damage Obama has done.

What corporate taxes?

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

How Exxon paid zero taxes in 2009

your article was full of weasel words.

According to this
United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporations paid $147 billion in Federal taxes in 2009, a recessionary year. They additionally paid state taxes.

Whereas half the citizens of the US paid $0 in federal tax in 2009, and of those the majority received some kind of federal government direct subsidy, like food stamps, $8000 remittance for signing a mortgage, cash for clunkers etc.

Globalization pits nations against one anther in a competition to attract corporations and foreign investment.

We can't afford to reduce our incomes to become competitive with Chinese labor. And we can't afford to open up the kind of duty free zone that Dubai can.

But we can afford to eliminate corporate taxes. They are only 7% of our revenues anyway.

Since 2009 was the bottom of the deepest recession since the 1930s and corporate taxes are based on profits, it's not a surprise that they were so low.

So, are you complaining about both of these things:

1. Corporate taxes are too high! It's costing us Jobs! and
2. Corporate taxes are a tiny little portion of revenues!