Government Seeks To Be More Fascist
Nice.
A year after Lehman Brothers collapsed, helping to trigger the worst financial crisis in seven decades, the Obama administration is pressing Congress for the power to dismantle other nonbank firms considered so large and influential that they could bring down the entire economy.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was asking a House panel on Thursday to pass legislation that would enable federal regulators to identify and monitor big financial firms and step in to wind them down before they collapse.
The proposal, worked out in an agreement with House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., also will give new powers to the Federal Reserve to enforce tougher requirements for these “too-big-to-fail” companies.
Beyond the whole issue of the role and constitutional authority of government, think of the real effects of something like this. Huge companies will feel even MORE free to take stupid risks because they know that the government won’t let them fail. The fear of failure is exactly what makes people make more rational decisions. Take away that fear and it’s Katie bar the door.
I would rather see a push by fiscal conservatives to finally hold accountable the people who"s meddling actually caused the financial callapse. Many people do not even understand how a mortgage is calculated, let alone how the secondary market works and how underwriting mandates can undermine the portfolio quality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2009 at 0732 hrs
Fred,
I agree with you. I have a huge problem with what these people get away…
Posted by Smeety on October 29, 2009 at 0904 hrs
Is it possible to break up or otherwise ensmallen the too-big-to-fail firms such that if they did fail we could just let them go and not go down the toilet with them? We should be looking for ways to make it so that we can let them fail. Right?
Posted by scott on October 29, 2009 at 1457 hrs
Look about three or four steps earlier in the financial collapse of these “too-big-to-fail firms” and you will see that specific actions of people like Barney Frank caused the problem. I understand proving cause and affect is a pretty high hurdle. But, the way he pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership a reality for low income people that would otherwise never qualify for a loan, caused the problem. The unintended consequence of loosening the underwriting was to make the mortgages too risky. Not everyone was surprised.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2009 at 1802 hrs
Fascist
Owen, please explain your perception of this being a fascist policy move? Not socialist?
Fred,
please enlighten me concerning the “specific actions of people like Barney Frank caused the problem. I understand proving cause and affect is a pretty high hurdle. But, the way he pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership a reality for low income people that would otherwise never qualify for a loan, caused the problem.”TIME TO MAKE THE LEAP FRED, or it’s just another BS unsubstantiated sound bite.
Let’s go boys?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2009 at 1858 hrs
Let’s go boys?
Sorry pjr, but we’ve hit our quota of trolls for the week… try again later??? K Thanks Bye!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2009 at 1925 hrs
Does no one have an answer to my question?
And, Fred, please. The cause of the financial collapse was that our regulatory agencies were not doing their jobs, not that they were doing them too well. Did Democrats participate in this orgy of deregulation? They sure did. It’s not a Republican issue, it’s a conservative issue. Politics has been taking a steady lurch rightward throughout my lifetime (although there are signs it may be reversing now). Even Bill “the era of big government is over” Clinton participated. It’s funny to me that you guys can be counted on to always find a way to blame poor people or liberal policies (such as we have).
But anyway, what about my question? Shouldn’t we be looking at ways to make sure firms don’t become too big to fail? I think we have a compelling interest in doing so, if it’s possible. I mean, businesses do fail. We have a right not to have our entire economy go down with one if it does.
Posted by scott on October 29, 2009 at 1938 hrs
Cute Jason,
I am trying to remember the last time you had anything intelligent to say.
You usually confine your comments to bashing scott.
So what’s your take on ” fascism” and Fred’s comments and the cause of the current mess.
Anything other than monosyllabic drooling coming from walworth county?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2009 at 1939 hrs
Mortgage loans used to be made by banks for 80% or less of the value of a home. You had to come up with the rest as a downpayment. The bank’s were making sure you had some skin in the game, so to speak. Banks bundled several mortgages that followed the underwriting guidelines from Fannie Mae together and sold them on the secondary market which would allow the bank to make more loans.
This system was targeted by people like Barney Frank and others for being unfair to minorities. They specifically targeted the underwriting. Many changes were made to loosen up money for minorities including not only loan to value that I mentioned earlier, but also income levels, credit scores, debt ratio, income verification, sources of income and others.
The unintended result was a secondary market swelling with bad loans. Historically mortgage backed securities were considered one of the most secure investments because nobody wanted to lose their home, but of course all that changed.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2009 at 0703 hrs
There are not, and were not, firms that were too big to fail. What existed were firms that were too big to fail without inconveniencing a priveleged class and a priveleged generation.
The solution is to let them fail.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2009 at 0748 hrs
Fred, most subprime mortgages were issued by firms that weren’t even subject to the Community Reinvestment Act. Furthermore, the CRA didn’t force banks to make bad, no money down loans. The CRA didn’t make Bear Stearns to operate on a 30 to 1 leverage ratio, either. I understand that it’s really, really tempting to blame the entire thing on the policies you don’t like, but you’re barking up the wrong tree. You may get some mileage out of that politically, but you won’t get anywhere with people who know better. Ben Bernanke flat out says that the CRA not only didn’t cause the crisis, it didn’t contribute to it in “any substantive way.”
There are not, and were not, firms that were too big to fail.
That’s an interesting take. Perhaps we’re all just being duped.
Still, I come down on the side of letting the nation’s top banks go under probably would have been a crisis more costly to us all than bailing them out. If that’s the case, the issue isn’t whether we should bail them out or not, it’s whether we should allow organizations to even be in that position.
Posted by scott on October 30, 2009 at 1054 hrs
Scott,
I think you have some of that backwards (I am not sure). My wife’s bank had been fined ‘as a small bank’ every other year for not making their CRA quotas to the tune 25-40,000 dollars each year over the last 10 years. They did not accept a lot of loans that they could have sold immediately to Freddie/Fannie because they never relaxed their lending practices.You are correct that many non-bank lending institutions were not subject to CRA, but many took advantage of the relaxed laws that most responsible banks stayed away from to make a fast buck, much like a profit taker in the stock market.
Only a partisan should spin this as blaming the poor or minorities. The vast majority of money loss from defaulted houses are from rich people buying ridiculously large and expensive homes that they could barely afford and lending institutions only took because of the income promise. Everyone, rich, poor and in the middle, took advantage of the relaxed housing laws of which the CRA (especially the 1999 amendments) is a part.
It is a fact that banks were fined for not giving out high-risk loans.
As far as ‘should a company be allowed to grow to its potential’, I tend to agree with BVBig Bro to let them fail. However, if you are going to try and regulate size (an impossibility in a global market, in my opinion), you must first separate Government and business, much like there is a separation of church and state. Otherwise, politicians will only de-regulate the opposition’s cash sources as is the trend today.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2009 at 1450 hrs
There is plenty of blame to go around…five years ago, you were stumbling on mortgage brokers who could get you cash for 125% of an inflated value of your home…
Posted by Smeety on October 30, 2009 at 1502 hrs
many non-bank lending institutions were not subject to CRA, but many took advantage of the relaxed
“Regulations.” I believe the word you’re looking for is “regulations.” Regulations that had nothing whatsoever to do with the CRA.
I think you guys are working too hard to make this the fault of individuals and of overregulation. Clearly the problem is that the government wasn’t doing its job and the industry went nuts.
Posted by scott on October 30, 2009 at 1503 hrs
To get off on a tangent here….
being that I am a capitalist, a free marketeer…
CEOs and all of these fookheads risk NOTHING. Capitalism is all about risk and rewards.
What we experienced was not CAPITALISM. It was CORPORATE LENINISM.
No risk and lots and lots of REWARDS.
These people’s personal incomes need to be tied to results. That is what CAPITALISM and FREE MARKET is defined as…
Posted by Smeety on October 30, 2009 at 1511 hrs
If, by
the government wasn’t doing its job and the industry went nuts.
you mean the Government passed improper legislation and/or did not enforce the proper legislation, I more or less agree with you.
Law, regulation, whatever. You break it, you are punished, whichever it is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2009 at 1525 hrs
I think the bit we’re disagreeing on is whether the faulty/missing laws/regulations were those laws/regulations designed by the left to help people, or were the result of right-wing corporate giveaways and deregulation. It seems to me you believe the former. I myself see it as the latter.
And what worries me is that pretty much nothing is being done about it. Everything went to hell, we got stuck paying the bill lest things get even worse, and now everyone seems to forget that we should probably do some things that make this less likely in the future.
Posted by scott on October 30, 2009 at 1548 hrs
No, I pretty much blame politicians universally for bad laws/regulation and it only matters a small whit to me that one side appears to be humanitarian and one side tries to appear fiscally conservative. The mask is off both in my opinion, you still have your political heroes.
Do you think there is even the smallest chance in hell, heaven, or earth that Obama will touch tort reform, while his largest single group donors are trial lawyers? Tort reform may be cited as a major, minor or somewhere in between contributor to our healthcare dilemma, but only a fool thinks that it has a negligible negative effect. Changing laws/torts/regulations is their primary job, no one else can do it, and if they can’t do that part while deciding how much control they want over our lives and health, it has already proven their infidelity to the common person in my eyes.
If it were Republicans that received all the lawyer money, I believe you would be, shall we say, exceedingly passionate in your criticisms of the laws currently in place concerning healthcare.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2009 at 1610 hrs
Tuerqas:
The caps on noneconomic damage have only a negligible impact on malpractice insurance premiums. So the pro-reform crowd responds by claiming that defensive medicine is the real problem. I don’t buy the defensive medicine argument for a second. Respectfully, no healthcare professional is going to change their practices because they can only be sued for $ 500K for non-economic damages.
Moreover, capping damages offends my notion of a free market economy as it is risk socialization. For a free market to exist, both the rewards and the risks need to be free. You don’t have a free market if either the profits are risks are capped. But If we are capping the risks on a particular activity, then the negative externalities are not properly priced in. Which will leads to more risk being taken for the benefit of few and at the expense of many—kind of like bailing out troubled banks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2009 at 1639 hrs
Scott, when you say, “It’s funny to me that you guys can be counted on to always find a way to blame poor people or liberal policies (such as we have),” I have to point out that the people like Barney Frank that forced the loosening of the underwriting did it on behalf of the poor and minorities. I don’t blame the poor for the actions of the poverty pimps that use them. I called on Barney Frank by name when I assigned blame.
Can you always be counted on to get the facts…....... wrong or right?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2009 at 1753 hrs
people like Barney Frank that forced the loosening of the underwriting did it on behalf of the poor and minorities.
Maybe you missed the part where I totally reject the idea that the CRA is the cause of the problem.
Posted by scott on October 30, 2009 at 1814 hrs
It seems to me that as Freddie and Fannie were about to go down in flames, anyone that had the audacity to point it out were ridiculed by Bawny Fwank and Chris Doddering, who , by the way, were coercing lending institutions of all kinds to make absurdly stupid loans.Maybe you can reject CRA as the primary villian, But you would be wrong. Again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2009 at 1849 hrs
Anything other than monosyllabic drooling coming from walworth county?
Awwww, must have really hit a nerve. Did you like the photo album?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2009 at 2325 hrs
Scott,
Ayn Rand said, “Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.”
Fred said, “Do not suffer fools.”Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2009 at 0624 hrs
But you would be wrong. Again.
Well, sure, that could be. And you could be wrong, too. But I’m not a “fool” as Fred suggests for thinking it. As I pointed out before, lots of other smart and knowledgeable people believe this. Ben Bernanke, chairman of the fed, for one.
Posted by scott on October 31, 2009 at 0951 hrs
Hate to point it out to you, but finding one allegedly smart guy who agrees with you does not necessarily make you correct. Or smart.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2009 at 1113 hrs
I commend your effort to not be a fool. That is not the same as trying to gain wisdom, though. It is not easy to study and learn about how these mortgage and investment instruments work—the real nuts and bolts. But, if you do actually learn how it works you would be free to understand as I do regardless of what other “smart” people say
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2009 at 1226 hrs
So basically Barney Frank (who is gay!) and the Democratic urge to help people via the CRA is responsible for the economic crisis. Anyone who disagrees is an idiot. Or something.
I guess we’ll agree to disagree. I’ve stated my position, you’ve stated yours (which I’ve summarized above).
Posted by scott on October 31, 2009 at 1238 hrs
From Robert Reich’s Blog
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Too Big to Fail: Why The Big Banks Should Be Broken Up, But Why The White House and Congress Don’t Want ToAnd now there are five—five Wall Street behemoths, bigger than they were before the Great Meltdown, paying fatter salaries and bonuses to retain their so-called"talent,” and raking in huge profits. The biggest difference between now and last October is these biggies didn’t know then that they were too big to fail and the government would bail them out if they got into trouble. Now they do. And like a giant, gawking adolescent who’s just discovered he can crash the Lexus convertible his rich dad gave him and the next morning have a new one waiting in his driveway courtesy of a dad who can’t say no, the biggies will drive even faster now, taking even bigger risks.
What to do? Two ideas are floating around Washington, but only one is supported by the Treasury and the White House. Unfortunately, it’s the wrong one.
The right idea is to break up the giant banks. I don’t often agree with Alan Greenspan but he was right when he said last week that “if they’re too big to fail, they’re too big.” Greenspan noted that the government broke up Standard Oil in 1911, and what happened? “The individual parts became more valuable than the whole. Maybe that’s what we need to do.” (Historic footnote: Had Greenspan not supported in 1999 Congress’s repeal of the Glass Stagall Act, which separated investment from commercial banking, we wouldn’t be in the soup we’re in to begin with.)
Former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, whose only problem is he’s much too tall, last week told the New York Times he’d like to see the restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act provisions that would separate the financial giants’ deposit-taking activities from their investment and trading businesses. If this separation went into effect, JPMorgan Chase would have to give up the trading operations acquired from Bear Stearns. Bank of America and Merrill Lynch would go back to being separate companies. And Goldman Sachs could no longer be a bank holding company.
But the Obama Administration doesn’t agree with either Greenspan or Volcker. While it says it doesn’t want another bank bailout, its solution to the “too big to fail” problem doesn’t go nearly far enough. In fact, it doesn’t really go anywhere. The Administration would wait until a giant bank was in danger of failing and then put it into a process akin to bankruptcy. The bank’s assets would be sold off to pay its creditors, and its shareholders would likely walk off with nothing. The Treasury would determine when such a “resolution” process was needed, and appoint a receiver, such as the FDIC, to wind down the bank’s operations.
There should be an orderly process for putting big failing banks out of business. But this isn’t nearly enough. By the time a truly big bank gets into trouble—one that poses a “systemic risk” to the entire economy—it’s too late. Other banks, competing like mad for the same talent and profits, will already have adopted many of the excessively-risky banks techniques. And the pending failure will already have rocked the entire financial sector.
Worse yet, the Administration’s plan gives the big failing bank an escape hatch: The receiver might decide that the bank doesn’t need to go out of business after all—that all it needs is some government money to tide it over until the crisis passes. So the Treasury would also have the authority to provide the bank with financial assistance in the form of loans or guarantees. In other words, back to bailout. (Historical footnote: Summers and Geithner, along with Bob Rubin, while at Treasury in 1999, joined Greenspan in urging Congress to repeal Glass-Steagall. The four of them—Greenspan, Summers, Rubin and Geithner also refused to regulate derivatives, and pushed Congress to stop the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation from doing so.)
Congress is cooking up a variation on the “resolution” idea that would give the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation authority to trigger and handle the winding-down of big banks in trouble, without Treasury involvement, and without an escape hatch.
Needless to say, Wall Street favors the Administration’s approach—which is why the Administration chose it to begin with. If I were less charitable I’d say Geithner and Summers continue to bend over bankwards to make Wall Street happy, and in doing so continue to risk the credibility of the President, as well as the long-term financial stability of the system.
Wall Street could live with the slightly less delectable variation that Congress is coming up with. But Congress won’t go as far as to unleash the antitrust laws on the big banks or resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act. After all, the Street is a major benefactor of Congress and the Street’s lobbyists and lackeys are all over Capitol Hill.
The Street obviously detests the notion that its behemoths should be broken up. That’s why the idea isn’t even on the table. But it should be. No important public interest is served by allowing giant banks to grow too big to fail. Winding them down after they get into trouble is no answer. By then the damage will already have been done.
Whether it’s using the antitrust laws or enacting a new Glass-Steagall Act, the Wall Street giants should be split up—and soon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2009 at 1728 hrs
I agree with Teddy Roosevelt when he said,
“The absence of effective state and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power….”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2009 at 1827 hrs
I can’t help but notice the lack of credible (or even non-credible) articles to back up Scott’s position.
I do not believe it (it being the CRA) is the sole root cause of the issue; very rarely there is only one root cause. However it is one of numerous issues that led to where we are. This is undeniable…except by Scott
Posted by Smeety on October 31, 2009 at 1911 hrs
Scott,
I’m not going to let you off that easy. Just this once, because it is possible there is hope for you. Here goes…......back in the day we had real liberals. These guys were not only anti-establishment, they seemed sometimes to be anti-everything. That’s because they QUESTIONED EVERYTHING. That is no small task. Think about it. Can you imagine spending hours over months, and years, studying to figure out what is wrong with the way the government is handling a particular issue? Essentially becoming an expert in something you have no interest in pursuing as a carreer and then going even farther and figuring out a proper solution? Then, in turn putting the same rigorous inquirie to the same institutions that taught you and made you—your family, your values, your faith, ultimately your “self.” These were real liberals. They did their homework. You couldn’t pull the wool over their eyes no matter which side of the aisle you came from. I know, because I was one of them. Give it a try Scott. I hear your questions. You are the only one who can make “you” stop searching for truth.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 01, 2009 at 0735 hrs
This crisis was caused by deregulation which allowed a bank to look at a 100 k loan, not as 100k leaving that bank but instead as a 230k asset. The mortgage lender then sells that mortgage to a larger interest for say, 150k. The buyer sees this as making 80 k on a 150 k investment (difference between 230 and 150) and the original lender sees it as making 50k cash right now on a 100k loan, the 50 k to be used in investment to make more money.
Because the original lender has no intention of making its money on the loan being paid off in 30 years, rather they are going to sell the loan and take the money and run, they are only interested in getting some poor sap to take out a loan. Often mortgage brokers saw a credit or income problem so they “fixed” the paperwork so that the loan was sure to go through. The borrower is certainly not in finance and just did what they were told to do to secure the loan, same way that I did when I received my mortgage. Now that the borrower is on the hook for a loan he cannot afford and does not understand (particularly ARM which has ballooning payments over time), no one cares because that loan is going to be sold and the bank that buys it will be stuck when the borrower can no longer afford it.
Things get worse, although the loan has no real value, the bank that bought it, because of GOP deregulation, is allowed to use that worthless paper to secure credit. They borrow on “assets” that are worthless so when they cannot pay for the money they borrowed, they have nothing of value to secure the debt. The house of cards goes both ways.
The Barney Frank Myth is ridiculous. Frank acted as Chair of the Banking Services Committee for 7 months before things went rotten and in that time was able to secure stronger regulations in that short time then the GOP had attempted in 6.5 years of control. (How can Frank be responsible for Bank collapses in 7 months when the Bush Admin was not responsible for 9/11 after 9 months in office, even after receiving the Memo from Security Agencies entitled “Al Queada Determined to Strike Inside the US”?)
GOP has always favored doing away with regulation and has lorded over the Dems with the issue. Remember this past year when Sen Charles Shumer was concerned with the practices of a bank and wrote to regulators with his concerns. Upon hearing of Sen Schumer’s letter there was a run on the bank and it collapsed. The GOP blamed Shumer, not the bank, because he was trying to get regulators to do their jobs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 01, 2009 at 0859 hrs
Republican Roots of the Subprime Crisis
In 2002, Bush issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to increase first-time minority homeowners. The Republican administration modernized FHA by improving its ability to reach underserved homebuyers (aka those who do not normally qualify for loans), such as low- and moderate-income families, individuals with blemished credit, and families who have little savings for a down payment.
The Republican administration directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to more aggressively serve risky markets, and threatened their charter if they did not do so.
December 16, 2003, President Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, which will help families with their down payment and closing costs.
The American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 followed Bush’s admonishment that capital must be made available to “low- and moderate-income families, individuals with blemished credit, and families who have little savings for a down payment.”
The Republican administration had HUD offer “zero down payment” mortgages, and risky 3, 5, and 7-year ARMs.
BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD “ZERO DOWN PAYMENT” MORTGAGE Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership LAS VEGAS - As part of President Bush’s ongoing effort to help American families achieve the dream of homeownership.
HUD’s Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, eliminated the statutory requirement of a minimum three percent down payment for FHA-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 01, 2009 at 0902 hrs
Pat,
It’s generally considered bad form to repost other people’s material without a link to the source.
Posted by Owen on November 01, 2009 at 0949 hrs
I just attempted to find the sources of #‘s 33 and 34.
# 33 comes from the lefty http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7395636I’m sorry, I can’t locate the exact link to #34.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 01, 2009 at 1100 hrs
I’m not going to let you off that easy. Just this once, because it is possible there is hope for you.
Patronize much? Shit. To think that I have a conservative—without a trace of irony—lecturing me about the value of questioning authority and one’s own moral underpinnings…
For the record, I don’t deny that the sale of subprime and adjustable rate mortgages played a part in our current housing and financial woes. I’m not an idiot. But when people start blaming national crises on folks at the lower-end of the income and political influence ladder, I know to look twice. There’s a long history of and an innate tendency to do this, misguided though it usually is. And then when I ask myself what a first-time home-buying, blue-collar family has to do with multi-billion dollar firms leveraging themselves beyond rationality… and when I read sober and unequivocal statements by people such as Ben Bernanke saying that the thirty-year-old CRA is not a major cause of the crisis of today, well… At that point you’ll find me pretty goddamned skeptical of those who would point the finger at liberal policies and the people they attempted to help. Such criticizers always have other ideological axes to grind. Such people were always, and still are, against such policies to begin with. Such people sometimes have only a passing relationship with the truth (global cooling, death panels, WMDs, etc.)
Rest assured that you do in fact teach me how to question things. Not by asking me questions yourselves, but by showing a terrific example of what one becomes when one stops doing it.
Why don’t you try questioning the powerful and the wealthy instead of fretting that some poor person might be receiving a penny of your tax dollar?
Posted by scott on November 01, 2009 at 1125 hrs
But when people start blaming national crises on folks at the lower-end of the income and political influence ladder, I know to look twice.
This is not even close to accurate with regard to this discussion.
Posted by Smeety on November 01, 2009 at 1226 hrs
Such people sometimes have only a passing relationship with the truth (global cooling, death panels, WMDs, etc.)
Can a liberal have a discussion without bringing up the horrible George W. Bush….
Posted by Smeety on November 01, 2009 at 1228 hrs
This is not even close to accurate with regard to this discussion.
So are you saying that all the right-wing criticism of the CRA as a major cause of the problem isn’t at all about pointing the finger at lower-income people and the liberal policies designed to help them out?
Can a liberal have a discussion without bringing up the horrible George W. Bush
Why? The same right-wing Americans who elected and defended him are the same folks who are today telling us that the CRA, the poorer folks it was supposed to help, and the liberals who championed it, are the cause of the financial disaster we’re now paying for. Their grasp of reality is fair game.
Posted by scott on November 01, 2009 at 1243 hrs
So are you saying that all the right-wing criticism of the CRA as a major cause of the problem isn’t at all about pointing the finger at lower-income people and the liberal policies designed to help them out?
That’s not what I’m saying at all. But you do create a nice strawman.
Why…......
:zzdeadhorse:... some people never learn….
Posted by Smeety on November 01, 2009 at 1319 hrs
Me: people start blaming national crises on folks at the lower-end of the income and political influence ladder
You: This is not even close to accurate
Me: are you saying that [criticism of the CRA] isn’t at all about pointing the finger at lower-income people and the liberal policies designed to help them out?
You: That’s not what I’m saying at all.
Help me understand what you’re getting at.
Posted by scott on November 01, 2009 at 1345 hrs
June 27 Business Insider has great article on CRA. Blog won’t let me insert url and article is too big for single post…
And I speak for myself here…
The crises people say we were in (I say we are still in) had (has) many, many, many ROOT CAUSES. I believe commodity prices pushed the consumer over the edge… but I digress… The housing market alone had several factors in play. The people out there with the foreclosed $600,000 homes played a role. Crooked appraisers and mortgage brokers played a role. Fraud directly linked to the CRA played a huge role.
My point as a direct answer to your first question is that as someone who takes personal responsibility for my actions, I do not discriminate against rich or poor. Anyone who contributed to the purchase of a house one cannot afford contributed to the housing crisis…
I feel criticism of the CRA is appropriate. The U.S. gov’t coerced banks through the CRA, and once again the U.S. taxpayer paid the price. Bush didn’t help, but he’s no longer in office. Frank is, and he’s continuing to do damage.
That’s my take…
Posted by Smeety on November 01, 2009 at 1439 hrs
So in your evenhandedness, you’re no doubt equally concerned about the various regulatory failures involved.
Posted by scott on November 01, 2009 at 1457 hrs
Scott,
I should have stuck with my first instint.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 01, 2009 at 2001 hrs
Instinct
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 01, 2009 at 2003 hrs
Super ID,
Tuerqas:
The caps on noneconomic damage have only a negligible impact on malpractice insurance premiums…
Cosidering your profession, I take this with many grains of salt. Also, as I did not mention ‘caps’ anywhere, your use of it in your ‘rebuttal’ begs the question: Why did a lawyer insert it? Could it be that your statement as stated is completely true and you are trying to draw me off topic so you can prove me wrong on the ‘off topic’?
Moreover, capping damages offends my notion of a free market economy as it is risk socialization. For a free market to exist, both the rewards and the risks need to be free.
It offends mine as well. However, so does forcing people to buy more and more insurance so that there is a pool of money for you and insurance execs to take from. A free market does not have ‘insurance by law’. Part of that ‘risks and rewards need to be free’ thing. Nor does it have a mechanism through which an organization of trial lawyers can influence lawmakers in to forcing private citizens to fill the tank of money that trial lawyers and insurance execs swim in. (Also called campaign donations)
Sorry, I do not have internet on weekends..,
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 02, 2009 at 0950 hrs
If doing so can make the economy better, then I don’t mind. But if it doesn’t bring anything then I should just stick with Day trading software . I think it’s better than the rest
Posted by Milka Giordano on November 18, 2009 at 1718 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134036
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 11:00 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 88
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 11:45 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).