Stimulus Anything But: The Long-Term Consequences

February 14th, 2009 Jr Accountant

We all know what kind of website this is, so there is absolutely no reason for me to point out that this analysis will inevitably have a conservative lean. The haters are more than welcome to throw “Neocon” and “war-mongerer!” my way because that seems to be the natural reaction when fighting the partisan fight - I assure you, the liberals should be just afraid as we are as to the long-term consequences of the passage of Obama’s stimulus, among other “creative” plans by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to kick-start lending in America. It is more like a kick in the teeth to any hope this country had at reasonable economic recovery.

First and foremost, we’ve been hearing for weeks now that plans must be supported, reactions must be quick, and trust must be established between the government and the taxpayer through “transparency and accountability” - Tim Geithner, ever the revolutionary, announced his financial stability program and was even kind enough to provide a website for Americans to keep an eye on his little project. How cute. They grow up so fast, don’t they?

But the reality is that the American economy needs sound, well-thought-out, creative solutions to our financial malaise. Some crackpot scheme pulled out of thin air that involves an insurmountable pile of debt on top of existing American obligations is NOT that sound solution. Forcing a bill bloated with pork and questionable earmarks ($80 million for a new Health and Social Services building? Seriously? How does this help us?!) through Congress, threats from the wicked witch of the far left, and a mysterious midnight release of said unsound “solution” just hours before the final vote leads me to believe that these guys simply have no clue. They are scrambling here. And worse, the world already realizes that America may not be able to keep its promise of economic stability to its citizens without drastic measures that will certainly compromise our already instable currency.

Where will this money come from?

Thin air. Just like the rest of it. And the pressure on the bond market will most certainly push Treasurys off their already precarious position.

The Federal Reserve cannot possibly support any percentage of this beast of a plan, let alone the entire $1 trillion shebang, without making some dangerous adjustments in money supply and policy. The money supply has seen a 30% increase in the last four months and bond markets are testing the Fed to see just how far they can be pushed. These are all ominous signs of what is to come.

Time to turn things around and introduce a truly intelligent solution may be running out, and who do you think will be left holding the bag when the ship sinks?


Rating: 2.9/5 (32 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!
  • Bill
    Our president and congress has enslaved our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren to pay off these massive debts. When thinking about the future of my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, I think I would prefer the hardships caused by the alternative of not bailing out all of these failed companies. Even the great depression ended and then the country enjoyed years of prosperity. Granted, there were recessions to be faced, but our standard of living continued to rise year after year. When I consider five years into the future, I can’t help but wonder what our standard of living will be then.
  • Shelley Martin
    I am so worried about my country.  What is going to happen to America?  I live in south central Texas and illegals are such a huge problem.  It's funny we never even talk about that anymore.  If we did'nt have such a gigantic illegals problem I bet most border states would'nt be in such a financial bind.  And crime.  The problem is the dinocrats have been in office so long.  What's wrong with people that they will not vote a democrat out of office.  They just don't know how to leave.  That's whats wrong with the country.  And Obama.  Why don't we have another tax revolution?  The whole country is nothing but WIMPS.  Obama now thinks he is the messiah and he and congress will make their marxist march full on.  God help us.  We're goin down.
  • Don Templeton
    The money in this stupid stimulus plan dedicated to interstructure projects will certainly help the Mexican economy.  If you have noticed the make up of crews doing the work along our roads, you will notice that Mexicans make up about  75% of the labor force,  This applies to other types of construction as well.  Welfare programs, current and future, provide stimulus not to work for many Americans.
  • Franklin's Locke
    You are not a "Neo-con." You are right!

    Can anyone say the Weimar Republic of the 1920s and hyperinflation?
     
    Printing money and trying to borrow it won’t work for much longer. They are going to have to raise taxes on everyone to pay for the trillions of debt that is coming.
     
    The tax and spend Liberals have just opened Pandora's box and who knows if Conservatives can fix this. Adam Smith just rolled over in grave and Karl Marx is smiling somewhere.

    http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
  • kenneth arnold
    These so called left democrats are nothing more than socialists. Another word is maybe commie? I fought against the communists in Vietnam. Now we have them running this country. I hope the American People wakeup in the next 2 years after all the damage they are going to face. Hope they throw these democrats out of the House of Representives And make this Stalinist type of President a lame duck for the last 2 years.
  • Dora
    Oh... but you LIKED the rubber stamp republicans when they had the majority.  it was spend, spend, spend... from ronnie to georgie.

    Guess what?  YOU LOST.  Deal with it.  more than this- your tiny umbrella of a party will continue to shrink because you cannot EVER focus on the big picture or long term needs... you shoot from the lip and grab all that you can for your own personal gain. 

    and on illegal immigrants...  we do not have an illegal immigrant problem- we have an illegal EMPLOYER program.  until you grow a pair and correct this- go after those who encourage this by HIRING them- you will continue to point the finger at the wrong culprit. ..as you always do.

    the world is looking for leadership and all you provide is obstruction.   cut taxes... this is your answer to everything.  and just how do you expect the government... whether local or federal,  to operate?  what good are tax cuts to the person with no job, no income, and no hope.  get a damn clue.  the point... the POINT of a stimulus plan is to get money out there to flow and create jobs.  not make-work jobs- but jobs that actually create, improve, and look forward to the future. 
    yes, it involves spending... duh!  yes, it's a spending bill... duh!
    and for all of you listening to nonsense from the non-news of Faux News,  not only is there NO money going to ACORN (as FOX "reported")- ACORN is not even eligible to  receive funds from this.
    get a damn clue.
    damn it's tiresome to watch you bigots and ideologues carry on - spouting nothing but rubbish and nonsense.  
    tell you what,  why don't you take your little minds and run for office... then go home and watch the results...  if you enjoy being embarrassed ... this is the route to go- you will see just exactly what a tiny, tiny number of people actually find your foolishness appealing.  good luck with that.
    you see,  it's like this... your way does NOT WORK.  it is precisely YOUR WAY that got us to where we are presently.  NOBODY finds that appealing. 
    get a damn clue.
  • davidwwalters
    Jr. Accountant......
    <<But the reality is that the American economy needs sound, well-thought-out, creative solutions to our financial malaise.>>
    -And that "sound, well-thought-out, creative solutions" will be
    What?  Point is, the party of NO seems to want the country to fail so they can say "I told you so" and take power once again.  But it was the supposedly sound policies of the previous administration that seem to have put us in this situation.
  • Franklin's Locke
    The Republicans has made serious mistakes. Yes, that is why they lost the election. They abandoned their sound principle and values. Their base did not turn out in the past two elections. They lost because of that, not that the Democrats had better ideas. Tax and spending is not new or a better idea.

    For good, fresh ideas, Keynesian economics are not. This has NEVER worked. Ask Nixon, Ford, and Carter to name a few. Cutting taxes have worked every time. Ask Harding, Kennedy, Reagan, and G.W. Bush. Cutting taxes to all levels of the economy gives money back to producers and consumers of the economy that government takes and does not use efficiently or at all. The producers and consumers spend this money better than the government. This spending uses goods and services that create a need in the economy; therefore creating jobs to satisfy that need. This is sound, basic economics.
     
    For the government to operate, they need to cut back. Cut their salaries, their services, and their waste would save money. Government needs to shrink, not expand in tough economic times. Everyone is cutting back, so should the government.
     
    For illegal immigration, you are absolutely right. Not only stop them from coming here, but also fine the companies that hire them illegally. This would save the government money in Medicare, welfare, and education costs, and our nation would be safer.

    http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
  • Dora
    You are under the illusion,  "Franklin", that business does things for the common good.  Business operates with an eye on the bottom line... period.  If it's cheaper to outsource manufacturing, call centers, and you name it jobs... they WILL because they can.  If it's more tax friendly to move your entire base off-shore to run from maintaining their fair share of the commons... they WILL because they can.   Government contracts should be given only to US based businesses employing US citizens.  Any company that outsources personnel,  jobs, or manufacturing should not be eligible for government contracts.  period.
    It's an understandable sentiment ... the buy US made products only- but what you fail to understand is that we don't manufacture anything anymore...  with one exception... faux news... they manufacture their own "facts".
  • ML Smith

    Stimulus or Socialism? 

     

     



    There is only so much reading between the lines that one can do before coming to the conclusion that America is taking socialism for a test drive. For all practical purposes, the government is now the new owner of 359 banking institutions across the country, and more will be added to the list as other institutions fail and request stimulus support.
    By taking control of the bonus and salary structure of the 359 banks slated to receive stimulus money, the government is the de facto owner - calling the shots previously the domain of CEO's and corporate boards of trustees. Salary caps and bonuses are now the province of the federal government, and if it makes it easier for you to swallow, call it federalization...the end result is still the same.

    Is this a good thing? It depends on your perspective. Some argue that the stimulus program is simply a federalized act of philanthropy designed to boost the economy back into orbit and prevent the domino effect that is sure to follow as smaller institutions beg the royal court for help.
    Others, argue that every word in the stimulus bill smacks of socialism, simply by virtue of the transfer of power to the government.

    The bill approved by Congress is comprehensive and quite clear on this transfer of power; federally monitored salary and bonus caps send a mighty strong message and it goes something like this: "If we give you assistance, you are beholden to us for all of your financial decision making." If you don't think that means total control, think again because financial decisions are at the core of operations for the banking industry.

    The stimulus plan is socialistic in concept and implementation; the question left un-answered is "How will this affect stockholders who hold shares in federally controlled enterprises?" The possibilities are disturbing at best and catastrophic at worst. Perhaps we need an Economic Sedative Package as well.

    I do not believe that socialism is a real issue here - unbridled greed is the issue we must deal with and unfortunately, the stimulus package fails to address the enormity of white collar crime that continues to bleed and fleece the American people. The plan avoids the facts, thereby making it possible for greedy investors to capitalize on the misfortune of others. Remember, this plan was figuratively formulated overnight and as such it has loopholes...some of them big enough to accommodate a fleet of Brinks and Wells Fargo trucks.

    The real test is yet to come when greed surfaces as it always does - where the money is. When the people's money supply is vulnerable to tampering, something far worse than federalized control of banking is an issue and the “trickle up” process can be identified now because it is already in motion. While the fat cats feast on our hard earned cash, history repeats itself and the signposts of economic catastrophe are
    happening...people are losing trust in the banking industry as a whole and nearly half the country distrusts this plan and the man behind it.
    If the people lose all trust and panic, the entire system (which is only a house of cards anyway) crashes, and all the King's men won't be able to put that back together again. Remember - this Stimulus “Scheme” is funded by toxic and illiquid debt...who pays for that? Right, we do. Middle class Americans will pay heavily and at the top of the Stimulus Pyramid our money will be re-distributed to the same people who got us into this mess to begin with.

    Socialism? Does it matter, really? We are now witnessing Humpty Dumpty economic policy. Weren't we told long ago to stay off that wall?

    ML Smith

     

     

     



    There is only so much reading between the lines that one can do before coming to the conclusion that America is taking socialism for a test drive. For all practical purposes, the government is now the new owner of 359 banking institutions across the country, and more will be added to the list as other institutions fail and request stimulus support.
    By taking control of the bonus and salary structure of the 359 banks slated to receive stimulus money, the government is the de facto owner - calling the shots previously the domain of CEO's and corporate boards of trustees. Salary caps and bonuses are now the province of the federal government, and if it makes it easier for you to swallow, call it federalization...the end result is still the same.

    Is this a good thing? It depends on your perspective. Some argue that the stimulus program is simply a federalized act of philanthropy designed to boost the economy back into orbit and prevent the domino effect that is sure to follow as smaller institutions beg the royal court for help.
    Others, argue that every word in the stimulus bill smacks of socialism, simply by virtue of the transfer of power to the government.

    The bill approved by Congress is comprehensive and quite clear on this transfer of power; federally monitored salary and bonus caps send a mighty strong message and it goes something like this: "If we give you assistance, you are beholden to us for all of your financial decision making." If you don't think that means total control, think again because financial decisions are at the core of operations for the banking industry.

    The stimulus plan is socialistic in concept and implementation; the question left un-answered is "How will this affect stockholders who hold shares in federally controlled enterprises?" The possibilities are disturbing at best and catastrophic at worst. Perhaps we need an Economic Sedative Package as well.

    I do not believe that socialism is a real issue here - unbridled greed is the issue we must deal with and unfortunately, the stimulus package fails to address the enormity of white collar crime that continues to bleed and fleece the American people. The plan avoids the facts, thereby making it possible for greedy investors to capitalize on the misfortune of others. Remember, this plan was figuratively formulated overnight and as such it has loopholes...some of them big enough to accommodate a fleet of Brinks and Wells Fargo trucks.

    The real test is yet to come when greed surfaces as it always does - where the money is. When the people's money supply is vulnerable to tampering, something far worse than federalized control of banking is an issue and the “trickle up” process can be identified now because it is already in motion. While the fat cats feast on our hard earned cash, history repeats itself and the signposts of economic catastrophe are
    happening...people are losing trust in the banking industry as a whole and nearly half the country distrusts this plan and the man behind it.
    If the people lose all trust and panic, the entire system (which is only a house of cards anyway) crashes, and all the King's men won't be able to put that back together again. Remember - this Stimulus “Scheme” is funded by toxic and illiquid debt...who pays for that? Right, we do. Middle class Americans will pay heavily and at the top of the Stimulus Pyramid our money will be re-distributed to the same people who got us into this mess to begin with.

    Socialism? Does it matter, really? We are now witnessing Humpty Dumpty economic policy. Weren't we told long ago to stay off that wall?

    ML Smith

     

     

     



    There is only so much reading between the lines that one can do before coming to the conclusion that America is taking socialism for a test drive. For all practical purposes, the government is now the new owner of 359 banking institutions across the country, and more will be added to the list as other institutions fail and request stimulus support.
    By taking control of the bonus and salary structure of the 359 banks slated to receive stimulus money, the government is the de facto owner - calling the shots previously the domain of CEO's and corporate boards of trustees. Salary caps and bonuses are now the province of the federal government, and if it makes it easier for you to swallow, call it federalization...the end result is still the same.

    Is this a good thing? It depends on your perspective. Some argue that the stimulus program is simply a federalized act of philanthropy designed to boost the economy back into orbit and prevent the domino effect that is sure to follow as smaller institutions beg the royal court for help.
    Others, argue that every word in the stimulus bill smacks of socialism, simply by virtue of the transfer of power to the government.

    The bill approved by Congress is comprehensive and quite clear on this transfer of power; federally monitored salary and bonus caps send a mighty strong message and it goes something like this: "If we give you assistance, you are beholden to us for all of your financial decision making." If you don't think that means total control, think again because financial decisions are at the core of operations for the banking industry.

    The stimulus plan is socialistic in concept and implementation; the question left un-answered is "How will this affect stockholders who hold shares in federally controlled enterprises?" The possibilities are disturbing at best and catastrophic at worst. Perhaps we need an Economic Sedative Package as well.

    I do not believe that socialism is a real issue here - unbridled greed is the issue we must deal with and unfortunately, the stimulus package fails to address the enormity of white collar crime that continues to bleed and fleece the American people. The plan avoids the facts, thereby making it possible for greedy investors to capitalize on the misfortune of others. Remember, this plan was figuratively formulated overnight and as such it has loopholes...some of them big enough to accommodate a fleet of Brinks and Wells Fargo trucks.

    The real test is yet to come when greed surfaces as it always does - where the money is. When the people's money supply is vulnerable to tampering, something far worse than federalized control of banking is an issue and the “trickle up” process can be identified now because it is already in motion. While the fat cats feast on our hard earned cash, history repeats itself and the signposts of economic catastrophe are
    happening...people are losing trust in the banking industry as a whole and nearly half the country distrusts this plan and the man behind it.
    If the people lose all trust and panic, the entire system (which is only a house of cards anyway) crashes, and all the King's men won't be able to put that back together again. Remember - this Stimulus “Scheme” is funded by toxic and illiquid debt...who pays for that? Right, we do. Middle class Americans will pay heavily and at the top of the Stimulus Pyramid our money will be re-distributed to the same people who got us into this mess to begin with.

    Socialism? Does it matter, really? We are now witnessing Humpty Dumpty economic policy. Weren't we told long ago to stay off that wall?

    ML Smith
  • ML Smith
    To Dora,

    I can't believe it - we actually agree and you are right on target, as is David...it is the policies of the past administration that got us into this mess and the corporate giants behind it all stand to reap profit once again as it will be the middles class that takes the hit.

    To: Urbanconservative: I don't know why you printed my comment three times, but you should delete at least two of them.
  • Franklin's Locke
    Dora,

    You are right, companies do outsource jobs. Sometimes with great success and others times not. Some companies realized that this business model did not work and brought the jobs back, because their customer service or products were horrible and they lost business. So, they did what was best for the company and their stockholders. Anyone would expect them to.

    Yes, there are tax issues and countless others in America that drives businesses offshore.
    Here are just a few:

    - high taxes
    - over regulation
    - laws inhibiting their business
    - unfair press (Halliburton and Exxon Mobile to name only a couple)
    - powerful unions
    - high wages in general
    - lack of resources due to government regulations
    - harassing politicians from both sides 

    I could continue, but there is an obvious trend. Liberalism has caused every one of these. An overreaching and arrogant government has done this—not a Republican, not a Democrat. The government in general has.
    If I owned a company, I would have a fiduciary obligation, ethically and legally, to do what is best for the company. Also, under the same principles, they must do what is best for the common good. If you worked for this company or owned stock, you would want the same. If they don’t, they loss business and go out of business.

    Change the things on the list and jobs would flood to America, such as service and manufacturing sector jobs. Not only would America invest in America but foreign companies would too.
    Also, there are more companies, CEOs, and organizations that do common good for all and in their communities than bad. The biased and ineffective media reports all the bad and ugly and does not report all the good some companies do and there are plenty. Yes, there is greed and bad companies and CEOs. There are bad apples in every group. There is good also. We need to reward the good and punish the bad. Right now, we are doing the exact opposite. When this country gets it priorities straight and returns to sound principles and values, we can turn this around. Until then, we will just keep repeating the same thing no matter if a Republican or a Democrat is in any office.

    http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
  • ML Smith
    Remember capitalism?
  • Veronica
    The Stimulus Bill is not a stimulus at all.  It will take many generations to pay off this debt.  I also think our taxes are going to go up drastically.  I am a small business owner and I plan on closing down on October 31.
  • harrysmom
    the debt that is being incurred by future generations is not going to be due to the government.  The government is simply trying to get us out of ruin that will inevitably be passed on to our prodigy et al.  The debt was created by us.  Yes, all of us and the greedy "MF's" on Wall Street- but our addiction to oil, SUV's, property flips, and second mortgages got whole thing rolling.  Point fingers in the mirror people before you go sucking air through your teeth at the one President who actually recognizes that we have to face the music at some point.  I'm actually shocked at the gall of conservatives pretending to be disgusted by the dirty carpet when they were the one's who shit on the floor in the first place.
  • davidwwalters
    wow, harrysmom! You're command of words is stupendous!(15)
    Thanx for putting it in a way that is so easy to understand.  When you have people like:
    Don Templeton (3)
    Whose insight seems to be limited, it is important to put these problems into perspective.  Mr. Templeton is concerned about "illegals" and fears the stimulus will only ".........help the Mexican economy."
    <<If you have noticed the make up of crews doing the work along our roads, you will notice that Mexicans make up about  75% of the labor force,  This applies to other types of construction as well.  Welfare programs, current and future, provide stimulus not to work for many Americans>>
    -People like this only believe what they see(.......except on Sundays)
    and fail
    to see what it takes to put these "Mexicans" to work......
    -The republican owner of the company,
    the secretary, and other office workers at the construction company,
    The many employees of the state or local DOT's,
    The engineering firms and surveying crews......
    -i could go on, but it would take all day.
  • Michael R.
    "The government is simply trying to get us out of ruin that will inevitably be passed on to our prodigy et al.  The debt was created by us.  Yes, all of us and the greedy "MF's" on Wall Street- but our addiction to oil, SUV's, property flips, and second mortgages got whole thing rolling. "

    Actually the government just insured that this is passed on.  I know that you want to blame conservatism and capitalism in general for the ills that we are facing but keep in mind that we haven't experienced true capitalism in over a century, we are mixed.  And where we were mixed, Banking, housing etc. is where we are experiencing the problems.  Much of the problems that we are facing in housing did not have anything to do with real supply/demand issues that the you would have seen in a market independent of the government interaction, instead it was increased demand due to financing manipulations by the gov to promote specific social goals. 

    They were well intentioned.  Get as many people into homeownership as possible, Great! but the way that we did it was artificial and we are now seeing the repercutions of all of this.  If you want to continue to blame the Conservatives then why are they seeing the same issues throughtout the world?  Is it a Conservative, capitalist world that we live in?  Then why is Britian, Russia, Czech Republic, Japan, India, and on and on having the same problems with exactly the same issues?  Not conservatism, not capitalism but perhaps it is just the opposite in that it was too much government interference into economies who's participants alone can best dictate proper valuations through simple supply/demand principles.

    What have we just done?  Where is the money coming from?  What is that effect on inflation for years to come?  We have retired people today who have saved their entire lives who will now see that nest egg be worth less tomorow dollar for dollar than it is today.  That is sad, that is something that that this government (not just this administration) has saddled every single one of us with.
  • Michael R.
    "I'm actually shocked at the gall of conservatives pretending to be disgusted by the dirty carpet when they were the one's who shit on the floor in the first place."

    Stratfor and the Big Picture (which David always says I never take into account).....Are most of these countries conservative?  Why are they facing these problems?  I see another common link and it is Government intervention into markets.  Now we are seeking to fix the problems with more government intervention into markets? 

    <!-- /teaser teaser-general --><!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 131870 -->
    Russia: The International Ripple Effect of Domestic Financial Woes
    February 10, 2023 2222 GMT

    Russian banks and firms are about to hit a snag in repaying their debts to foreign banks -- a fact that will hit Europe's banks particularly hard. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 130910 -->
    Switzerland: Looking Deeper into the Economic Toolbox
    January 23, 2023 1833 GMT

    Switzerland's national bank is considering intervening in the currency markets in a way that Bern's eurozone neighbors would rather not see. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 130900 -->
    Singapore: Trying for 'Resilience' During a Recession
    January 22, 2023 2122 GMT

    The Singaporean Finance Ministry has announced a $13.7 billion stimulus package as fourth quarter 2008 statistics reveal the Southeast Asian city-state's economy is taking a severe beating. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 130481 -->
    EU: The Credit-Rating Challenge
    January 16, 2023 1234 GMT

    Various European nations face the prospect of seeing their credit ratings slashed. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 130189 -->
    Eurozone: The Economic Slowdown Deepens
    January 9, 2023 1959 GMT

    Economic statistics from Germany -- which is Europe's economic powerhouse -- suggest a collapse of demand across the eurozone. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 128706 -->
    Greece: Riots and the Global Financial Crisis
    December 9, 2022 2213 GMT

    Europe will be nervously watching rising social unrest in Greece. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 103028 -->
    Geopolitical Diary: Rate Cuts Nearing the Bottom
    December 5, 2022 0315 GMT

    Four central banks in Europe lowered their benchmark interest rates on Thursday -- but now they are almost out of monetary policy options. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 128448 -->
    Ecuador: Breaking the Seal on Debt Defaults
    December 4, 2022 2331 GMT

    Ecuador says it will default on a number of government bonds -- making it the first developing country to default in the present global economic crisis. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 128431 -->
    Argentina: Running Out of Runway
    December 4, 2022 2041 GMT

    Argentina’s government made several moves Dec. 4 that will have serious ramifications for the country’s struggling economy. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 128409 -->
    China, U.S.: Banking Tensions Amid the Global Recession
    December 4, 2022 1837 GMT

    Access to China's banking sector might be just one of many U.S.-Chinese tensions likely to arise amid the global recession. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 127898 -->
    Turkey's Footing in the Global Economic Crisis
    November 26, 2022 2332 GMT

    Turkey is feeling the effects of the global economic crisis, but it is stronger than it was seven years ago. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 127899 -->
    European Union: An EU-Wide Stimulus Package Only in Name
    November 26, 2022 2136 GMT

    The EU plan accepts the fact that each member state will react to the global recession in the way it deems best. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 127792 -->
    United States: Shifting Risk from the Treasury to the Fed
    November 25, 2022 2024 GMT

    The sticky parts of the U.S. bailout program have now been handed to the institution with the most capability for unfettered action. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 127784 -->
    Pakistan: Grabbing the IMF Lifeline
    November 25, 2022 1917 GMT

    The International Monetary Fund approved Pakistan's much-needed US$7.6 billion loan on Nov. 25 - but the bailout could raise as many problems as it solves. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 127734 -->
    GCC States: Eyeing Opportunities in the Global Financial Crisis
    November 25, 2022 1623 GMT

    Oil wealth and responsible management mean the young economies of the Persian Gulf could weather the global financial storm well, despite the hurdles they face. (With Stratfor interactive map) [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node-sf_analysis.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 127592 -->
    EU: A Stimulus Plan Germany Can Live With
    November 21, 2022 2027 GMT

    Germany has taken a stand against the inclusion of British-proposed Europe-wide tax and value-added tax cuts in a German-backed, Pan-EU economic stimulus package. [more]
    <!-- MMF NID 103028 -->
    Geopolitical Diary: The Global Recession
    November 21, 2022 0219 GMT

    We are now seeing the first economic downturn since 1975 to affect the entire developed world simultaneously. [more]
    <!-- /teaser teaser-general -->
    <!-- /node-teaser (node.tpl.php) -->
    <!-- MMF NID 127522 -->
    Latvia: Seeking Support from the IMF
    November 20, 2022 2104 GMT

    Latvia is looking to set up a stabilization package in case the economic situation in the country gets worse, but has to act fast.
  • Jason
    Say hello to Mr. Stagflation.  Obama, you could learn a thing or two from the Carter Administration.
    http://www.rightklik.net/
  • JackieM
    too funny!  i do think it is time for a change and the democrats need to own up to their part in this debacle.  let's start back in 1995 with Clinton's move to put everyone in a home!  will democrats ever admit their hand in this mess?  i'm against any kind of big spending and true republicans are.  those who have caved in to pressures from every angle have not done us any favors.  thank God for the stance all but three (democrats) republicans took!  i'm glad they are finally speaking for the people.  when this plan fails, democrats will be out for a long time and i'll say good riddens!
  • JackieM
    Jason:  you, i and others understand economics but unfortunately most people do not.  those are the ones supporting this bill.  it is as simple as obtaining an education, which a lot of folks with degrees still don't have!  democrats will never admit to the pork or that this is pelosi's bill.  obama has no clue what he is doing but i guess he will learn the hard way.
  • Michael R.
    This from the AP about Venezuela.  Sound familiar.  Was it the Conservatives and capitalism that caused this problem?

    "Chavez has long spent heavily on social programs to buttress his support, and he plans to spend more than $200 billion in the next four years to build railways, improve health care, support agriculture and invest in energy. But those plans will increasingly be hamstrung by financial realities."
  • Michael R.
    This is the collapse of government social economic programs, not just our government, but govs across the world.  Simultaneously we are being convinced that they just didn't go far enough and we need greater intervention in every aspect of both business and individual life. 
    I am an independent person, most conservatives are.  That is a positive attribute that has faith in people not in government.  Faith in government over individuals is an inherent assumption of inferiority in the individual.  I believe that every person, male-female, black-white has the ability to be someone who does not need a hand out from some government office and can exist on their own with minimal interference.  
    Now we are being told that today's problems can only be fixed by the government and we as individuals do not have the power to provide for ourselves.  Conservatism rejects that notion hence the reluctance to accept the stimulus plan.
  • simonesdad2009
    I think the President gave the republicans an opportunity to chime in here.  He said, bring me something new.  He said, we'll use the best ideas out there, no matter where they come from.  The republicans took that opportunity to offer the same old ideas.  It was astonishing.  Now let me say that I'm not in love with this stimulus plan.  I agree that something had to be done and done quickly.  That's what happens when things get so bad that emergency measures are needed.

    I think if you take money from the government, you are subject to their rules, salary caps and all.  If you don't like it, DON'T TAKE THE MONEY!  Republicans seem quick to say, let them fail.  Let the market decide who survives.  Let capitalism decide.  The problem with that is the voters.  If there are massive business and industry failures in the name of capitalism, no one is going to vote for the party that chooses that over them and republicans know that deep down.  The rest is just bluster and posturing.  I think there is a place for some tough love and, yes, some businesses probably need to fail in order for the majority to survive.  But don't get all Ebeneezer Scrooge on us now after the last 8 years.  If you are rooting against this stimulus to succeed (and none of us are economist), you are rooting against America to succeed.  Republicans spent the duration of this war saying you can't support the troops if you are not supporting the war.  It seems like the same dynamic here.  Maybe you don't agree with the stimulus or just believe there is a better way without it but this is what we have now so let's support it.  Apply this same statement to the Iraq war and you have republican talking point #1.
  • Dora
    Jackie..."...  it is as simple as obtaining an education..." said the highly educated Jackie anxious for a put down of the stupid non-conservatives......  she followed by :  "and i'll say good riddens!"

    Jackie... Jackie... J ackie... this is not the first time you have used this example of your "education"... but the word is riddance...  as i have said before, it's something of a stretch to ask to be taken seriously
    when you do this sort of thing constantly.
  • JackieM
    Dora:  maybe you ought to start actually paying attention then.  i would suggest you listening to obama's own economic team.  they have disagreed with the content of the stimulus package.  obama doesn't even know if it will work.  i can guarantee it won't work unfortunately.  read economics books and you'll understand the whole picture.  until then, i don't have anything else for ya except to say let's wait and see the disaster take place.  we won't want to actually fix any problems.  obama has proven he can't do that!
  • JackieM
    it is hard for me to believe that people are actually buying into this plan.  it is a joke.  how is $13/week going to change people's lives?  how it that going to afford them daycare, groceries, lights, water and a house?  that is a complete joke and it is sickening that people are still behind obama especially when this is not his plan to begin with.  he just put his name on it and has become a puppet as i said he would!

    bipartisanship is not obama's plan and it was for appearances only.  he has already lied to the people who voted for him and they refuse to see it!
  • JackieM
    oh but obama is really working hard.  yeah right.  he is taking another vacation already.  what a joke.  of course, they can call it a working vacation for those who choose to believe it.  so much for all of his promises.
  • Dora
    Good grief, Jackie.  What exactly is your problem?
    Obama is not taking a "vacation"- he's coming here- to Colorado- to sign the stimulus bill HERE.  Then he will go to Arizona to participate in local activities there which will be effected by the stimulus bill.

    What you don't understand, Jackie- is the NOBODY knows exactly what will "work" as far as a fix is concerned... and why is that? Because there are interwoven aspects to every single job lost and every single job gained.   If you were not so busy trying to place blame and point fingers- maybe you could actually take a moment to understand what you brag so heavily that you grasp.   Just exactly what sort of "hand-out" did you have in mind for yourself.  You who constantly moaned and groaned about Obama long before he was elected and long before you actually READ anything regarding his positions on ANYTHING.  
    Perhaps I missed the news the day you were called to the White House for your input on the direction we need to take.  I did not see your name mentioned.  Nor were you appointed to the cabinet.  It's pretty easy to bitch and moan from the cheap seats, isn't it?!  You act like a newly beheaded chicken, for god's sake.
  • JackieM
    Dora:  as i and others have said you like to spread hatred and don't have any kind of solutions and facts but only rhetoric.  i completely understand economics but as your bud schumer put it, the American people don't care about all of the pork in the bill.  ha!  at first i thought it was spector that said this and was angry about it.  now i see which side it is coming from and understand the source.  that says it all in a nutshell but you choose to ignore the words and actions of your own party!  of course, obama said there was no pork in the bill.  your own party can't agree with themselves.  don't expect people who understand economics to go along with a plan that will not work.  i understand how complicated creating jobs is and also understand how they are most efficiently created!  obama's economic team doesn't completely buy into pelosi's bill.  you are an idiot if you think i want anything from this bill and are selfish when you don't think of others who are suffering.  i was merely going by obama's rhetoric (lies) in his campaign of how much he would help middleclass folks.  obviously, you don't expect him to live up to his promises either.  oh, and i didn't realize you were in my living room every night before he was elected and know what i was doing.  hmmm!  i moaned and groaned about obama because I ACTUALLY READ AND UNDERSTOOD HIS STANCES ON THE ISSUES and knew he would destroy this country.  he has not disappointed me yet!  all of his rhetoric is just that!  you keep forgetting who some of the folks are from his cabinet--people from the most corrupt system in the US and folks who don't pay their taxes when they are due!  i don't think i could play the dishonest politics because i actually care about this country and have a strong value system!
  • Bill
    For simonesdad2009:
     
    You comment is well written and I agree with much of what you’ve said; especially the statement regarding pay caps and rules associated with taking money from the government.  However, the stimulus bill and all of the other bailouts are going to take generations to repay.  In an earlier comment on this subject I talked about this, and can’t help but wonder if the cure is worse than the disease.  Without the stimulus bill(s) and the bailouts, the next few years would indeed be very tough and painful for many of us.  However, that would end and the economy would rebound.  At that point, we, our children, and our grandchildren would not be saddled with trillions of dollars in additional debt.  
     
    In the I.T. business, we have something called a “Root Cause Analysis” to determine what actually caused a computer related outage.  I would love to see our government perform a root cause analysis on our current economic situation.  Once the root cause is determined, then we would know what really needs fixing.  I realize this will never happen because the chances are too great that finding the root cause of this mess would likely point at the people in power today.  
     
    As you stated, we have the stimulus bill and bailouts now, and whether we like them or agree with them, we all need to work together to ensure that this strategy is successful.
  • davidwwalters
    ML Smith (10)
    <<
    I do not believe that socialism is a real issue here - unbridled greed is the issue we must deal with and unfortunately, the stimulus package fails to address the enormity of white collar crime that continues to bleed and fleece the American people.
    >>
    -This is the heart of the matter....it is the fly in the "Magic of the Marketplace" ointment.
  • davidwwalters
    Michael R.(17)
    -
    those poor banks!  If only the dam'd government hadn't made them hand out money.  YES! If only the banks could have just been free to operate by the dictates of "supply & demand" (.....don't forget that econ 101 class, you liberal fools!)
    <<Not conservatism, not capitalism but perhaps it is just the opposite in that it was too much government interference into economies who's participants alone can best dictate proper valuations through simple supply/demand principles>>
    -
    And they(-those poor bankers) fought making those loans tooth&nail, didn't they?
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/13/60min...>
  • harrysmom
    JackieM: #20 "let's start back in 1995 with Clinton's move to put everyone in a home!  will democrats ever admit their hand in this mess?"


    Really?  I know (personally) how slow the wheels of Washington work...but let's get real.  Are you seriously trying to claim that Bush had no culpability here?  That's just ridiculous.


    And please allow me to address the issue of socialism, because it seems to get flitted around ad nauseam around here.  Socialism, as an economic system, negates ANY free market trade.  Neolibs have NEVER (and couldn't ever) attempt to accomplish a sea change such as this - in fact, it would basically require a reworking of the constitution (and Obama is a constitutional scholar who wouldn't dream of touching that!).  I'm simply pointing out that using the term 'socialism' is hyperbolic and mitigates any intelligent argument.  Maybe that's why the House Republicans are crying like little babies claiming nobody is listening...because they sound like idiots when they can't even get their political theories straight.
  • davidwwalters
    harrysmom......
    -None of the neander-cons have mastered the technique of critical analysis.  If they did, they'd understand that the idea of de-regulation and targeted (only for the wealthy) tax cuts hasn't worked, and will not bring our once great nation out of the malaise we find ourselves in.
  • JackieM
    Harrysmom--i don't think you ever actually read anything i have previously posted so i'll repeat this again!  BOTH SIDES ARE AT FAULT!  i have disagreed time and time again with decisions that were made from Bush's camp.  However, i place blame where blame is due and do not blame one party when the other hand a huge hand in it.  that is the difference between most republicans and you guys.  when we disagree with our party, we say so!  so you need to look in your own closet also!  I have also disagreed with the bailout plan, stimulus bill and the auto bailout!  there has been no oversight to speak of and those in charge of giving out the money are ensuring our children and grandchildren will foot the bill.  the money is being thrown down a blackhole.  for the amount of money being spent, we won't see much in the way of job creation.
  • DS
    So why can't we all agree to abolish the IRS and implement either a Fair Tax or Flat Tax?  That way we'll all be on the same playing field.  Again, we won't see this happen because it would eliminate the need for politicians and lobbyists EVEN though it makes sense...and would work!!   It becomes ever more apparent that these jackasses don't want to solve our problems!!  They are interested ONLY in power!  When will we get fed up enough to actually do something about this nonsense?  I think there will need to be a real revolution in theis country before we get it back.
  • Michael R
    DS, I am hearing that more and more everyday and I agree, something has to happen.  No one has faith in this government anymore and those that still do have a vested interest in keeping the playing field as uneven as it is.  We all need to start talking to one another so no conservative feels that they are alone in feeling our country is being turned on its head.  You are not alone, I am not alone and we do have the power to continue to speak out against the fleecing of entire generations of Americans to come.
  • davidwwalters
    DS(36).......
    <<
    It becomes ever more apparent that these jackasses don't want to solve our problems!!>> -----------Yes!!
    Lobbyist are the problem.  I'd love to see a flat tax.....though i fear the wage earner will have his/her share deducted while the "Captain's of Industry" will find a way to hide their earnings somewhere.......hidden from the light of day.  Even with the IRS this happens.  Yes the playing field is uneven.  How can we insure EVERYone pays their fair share?
  • JackieM
    David--that is an easy answer.  you get rid of all deductions and everyone pays a flat tax.  obama can do something about this but won't anymore than he is doing enough for small businesses or the middleclass (as he promised).  we don't have time for him to sit on his ass and not put more reductions in place to help working folks.  he already knows how.  what is $13/week going to do for a struggling family?  how will that save their homes and pay for daycare?  it won't but somehow his rhetoric is making people believe his plan is going to work.  many, many experts say it won't and i know it won't.  it just goes back to simple math.  we need stimulus NOW!  his plan will create jobs for SOME people mostly in 2010 and 2011.  so how does that fix the problem NOW?  what i have said all along has come to light in the state of CA.  taxes are being raised so people and businesses are moving to neighboring states.  obama's stick it to the rich guy campaign rhetoric will not work and his theory has been proven here.  a significant reduction in taxes in small businesses and for people is one huge way to fix this problem.  of course, housing and other things are necessary also.  obama's housing plan is a joke and won't do much!
  • davidwwalters
    <<David--that is an easy answer.  you get rid of all deductions and everyone pays a flat tax.>>-JackieM
    -not to be a total asshole, but there is an assumption here.....and that assumption is that ALL income will be counted in this flat tax.  But in reality, those people of means (.....yes. the rich -sorry 'bout that)
    have ways of hiding income (-in Switzerland maybe, or Antigua, i hear The Bahamas are a good place to hide income).
    So what about that issue?  It seems as if only those of means(and real money that would help our tax base)are really able to cheat the system.  That leaves wage earners&small business types to shoulder the tax burden.
    I get the feeling you are perhaps a small business woman.  That's great!   One way to unburden all businesses is to relieve them of their health care obligations.
    I wonder how this could be accomplished?
  • JackieM
    David--one way to unburden small businesses and employees of healthcare costs is to get rid of the lobbyists (you know those folks obama said he wouldn't have in his administration but hired anyway.  his lies are growing).  the next thing that can be done is to make healthcare competitive.  that way the government can stay out of my affairs and everyone else's.  that is called a free-market economy.  US citizens would then be free to make their own choices.  government cannot and will not control people and that includes doctors (communism).  doctors are under pressure now from the insurance companies and can't take care of their patients as they deem necessary.  what do you think will happen if the government further tramples on their abilities to make decisions on patient care?  there will be fewer doctors in this country.  under a nationalized healthcare system, we will need more doctors and the government will be responsible to cater to them to ensure we have an adequate amount.  however, the government will not do this.  so you and i will be waiting six months or so for appointments.  boy, i look forward to that.  we will be more of a number than we are now.  it will be left up to the government as to whether they will pay for a life-threatening disease.  now you can trust the government with your life if you want but i choose not to for obvious reasons.  i guess you must be happy with the way the government is handling vet affairs now?  it will only get worse, my friend.

    As far as hiding money, the rich do that now and the government has the means to stop most of that if they choose.  of course, we can't get all of obama's cabinet members to pay their taxes like they should so it goes to show the incompetence of it. 

    CA is a perfect example of what happens when taxes get out of control.  our government needs to be limited to responsibilities such as protecting this country, and establishing fair trade treaties, etc.
  • davidwwalters
    JackieM (41)
    <<
    ........it will be left up to the government as to whether they will pay for a life-threatening disease.>>
    -As opposed to leaving it up to an insurance company to make this same decision. 
    But again, back to my original point:
    -Taking a layer out of the health care formula (getting rid of health insurance companies)  would have a two fold effect to unburden all businesses. 
    1)  They would not have the crushing cost of the insurance premiums
    2)  Taking that money sucking layer (health insurance companies) out of the mix would lower the overall cost of providing health care for the remainder of the mix......the health care consumers, and the health care providers.
    You seem to be blinded by your ideological views and unable to see the big picture.  If a business has NO health insurance premiums, that leaves more on the bottom line, even after figuring in any tax increase incurred by the government assuming the cost of providing the care......BECAUSE an entire layer (the insurance providers) is eliminated.
  • Adam
    David,

    Just out of curiousity, if health insurance companies are "eliminated' what happens to all of the jobs created by that industry? What happens to the millions of people with a stake in the industry whether that be stock ownership or other form of stake?

    I am not saying I disagree or agree, but I have no read any solutions to this issue.
  • JackieM
    David--so you are saying take the insurance companies away even though competition would solve a lot of the problems and give the responsibility to the government who can tie claims and decisions up in its bureaucracy as it does with everything else?  so you are saying we should just call the government to get our procedures approved like we can call the IRS and wait on the phone for over an hour and still not get an answer?  do you call that efficient?  David, you can't sit there and tell me you trust the government to handle anything and be honest.  You have complained time and time again about the healthcare vets get, which i happen to agree with.  so you think the government is the solution for everything now even though it has failed time and time again and is continuing to fail us?  
  • davidwwalters
    Adam(43).....
    -
    good question, "...... what happens to all of the jobs created by that industry?"
    Nothing is perfect in this world, i suppose the clerical work could be filled by a need for such jobs created at the federal&state level to process claims.  If not, let's hope they can get a job working on a highway construction crew.....it's hard work at times, but it's honest labor.
    The CEO's......?  Well that's another matter, but i'm sure they will have the ways and means to re-invent themselves. 

    jackieM(44)......
    <<.............
    even though competition would solve a lot of the problems
    >>
    -
    competition seems to be overrated, because the system, the way it is now is not effective at all in providing low cost, quality health care for Americans.
  • JackieM
    David-competition is not overrated.  it gives people the incentive to create new and better products.  that creates jobs!  healthcare should be guaranteed for everyone if they pay for it.  nothing is free.  if that person doesn't pay for his/her healthcare, others have to.  you know my thoughts on planning and taking care of children people choose to have.  that being said i can tell you that the government has sold us out and is continuing to do so by their policies and them allowing the lobbyists to be in control.  if these problems are corrected, we will see healthcare costs greatly reduced.
  • davidwwalters
    <<David-competition is not overrated.  it gives people the incentive to create new and better products.>>
    JackieM.....Then why hasn't the magic of the market place give America the best health care system in the world.  I mean, it is competitive, it is market based.......but it fails to meet the needs of Americans in providing low cost care.
    We have consumers, providers, and insurers in the health care mix. The cost of the extra layer (insurers) is what drives up the cost.  The only competition is between how much the insurance companies can squeeze out of a captive market. 
    Competition works fine with cars and colas....but not with health care.
  • davidwwalters
    -and how is a person to afford insurance if their job has been cut by the economic downturn that is another miracle of the market place?
    (.....not to mention if they make minimum wage)
  • JackieM
    David--haven't you read my posts?  insurance is not competitive.  Neither are the drug companies.  until Washington decides to ensure this, we will never have the best healthcare possible.  what do you call lobbyists being in bed with the politicians?  it is not competitive because Washington (now obama and the democrats solely) do not want it to be.  before this i could blame both sides.  competitive health insurance and drugs should be first and foremost.  look at our own car insurance in the state you and i both live in.  that is a perfect example of corruption.  if someone who is perfectly able to work and learn makes minimum wage, he/she should gain the skills to be able to find a job to afford health insurance.  David, the economic downturn would be temporary if the right policies were in place, but they are not so it will continue longer than necessary thanks to obama and his cronies.  everyone who wants to work will not be able to find jobs for a few years.  so if people were smart, they would realize this and start pressuring Washington to give Americans a chance, but they won't so we have what we have!  the easy fixes are being ignored.  there are ways to immediately see positive changes in our economy, but unfortunately obama and his cronies and those who voted for him don't give a damn!  proof would be in the pudding but the democrats don't want to hear it and are playing to their own tune right now instead of the good of the American people.  i guess $13/week will create jobs and help people pay their mortgages?  this action is in place of giving the middle finger to the middleclas but most Americans have become too stupid to see it!
  • Michael
    The best explanation of the Obama Stimulus Plan I have heard yet.


    This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic  Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:







    Q. What is an Economic  Stimulus Payment?




    A. It is money that the federal government will  send to taxpayers.







    Q. Where will the government get this  money?




    A. From taxpayers.







    Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?




    A. Only a smidgen.







    Q. What  is the purpose of this payment?




    A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV Set, thus stimulating the economy.







    Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?




    A. Shut up.





    Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:







    If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.







    If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs.







    If you purchase a computer it will go to  India.







    If you purchase fruits and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).







    If you buy a car it will go to Japan.







    If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan.







    If you pay your credit cards off, it will go to bank management bonuses and they will hide it offshore.  Same with stock investment.





    Instead, you can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spending it on prostitutes, beer and wine (domestic ONLY), or tattoos, since those are the only American businesses still operating in the US.
  • davidwwalters
    "......There you go again....."
    Michael(50)....
    W
    ho said this?  ....Oh, probably some right wing conservative.
    I thought you had a degree in economics Michael.....and with what you said in (50), i am having doubts.
    Now when you buy a computer, The money goes to India?  All of it....really?
    None of the transport or sale profit stays here in the U.S.A.?  A car bought at my local Honda dealership ALL goes to Japan? 

    "......There you go again....."(Ron Reagan)
  • Michael
    Did anyone else other than David take think that was really a Q and A? My lord man, you have to lighten up a bit.
  • JackieM
    Michael:  that was too funny!  thanks for the laugh!  the following was my favorite and it is true!

    So the government is giving me back my own money?
    A. Only a smidgen.
  • davidwwalters
    "So the government is giving me back my own money?
    A. Only a smidgen."
    -i'd like
    for more money to be given back to the backbone of America
    ......the wage earners;  those folks who make less than $20/hour.  For too long we have had an administration that has pandered to the wealthiest Americans....it's time to acknowledge the honest toil of the guys& gals who sweat for a living.
  • JackieM
    David--people have choices to not work for the wealthiest Americans or do business with them too!  we have choices to not put money into their pockets and not buy their products, David!
  • davidwwalters
    <<David--people have choices to not work for the wealthiest Americans or do business with them too! we have choices to not put money into their pockets and not buy their products, David!>>
    -JackieM(56)
    -It's
    not so much a choice.  It's a reality that the rules are rigged by those very same people who are so rich......to continue the process.  This is where lobbyist come in.  When a lobbyist is paid a percentage of the federal dollars that hi/her efforts have provided a certain entity, this is legalized bribery.  This is the problem.  And the richer the entity, the higher the bribes become.
    So you can choose not to buy coke or anything else for that matter.  That's a choice.  But Virginia Class submarines have been built on our dime, even though the cost effectiveness of the security provided to each and every citizen is marginal at best.  They have since been canceled(the subs).....but the billions of dollars spent are now a huge chunk of the deficit each and every one of us owns.
  • Michael
    Jackie,
    I am glad someone got that.  David is still debating me on the content of the joke.  We all don't have a sense of humor I suppose.
  • JackieM
    David--you missed my point.  people can choose to work for themselves and make choices based on what they buy and from whom.  so you knew about the government waste in the military?  so i'm sure others did too?  where were your united voices doing something about it?  the military folks should know better than anyone about what is going on so what were you guys doing to stop it?  i didn't see any of you on the news or on capitol hill raising cane!  you can sit on the sidelines or actually try to make a difference.  i've actually been speaking to the only senator we have that is worth a !@#$!@#$ in the past few days in addition to other actions i've taken.  i'm trying to make a difference even though i just one person.  talk is cheap!
  • davidwwalters
    i didn't see any of you on the news or on capitol hill raising cane! -JackieM
    The waste is so pervasive and such a part of the culture of both congress&the military that there is little i can do against the lobbyist of Boeing or the many other companies that depend on the federal teat for their bottom line.
    Why do you thinkPresident Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell speech stated?
    "A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
    This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
    If no one will listen to Ike, what makes you think they'd listen to me Jackie?
  • Michael
    Another 410 Billion just approved by the house.
  • davidwwalters
    So what is the republican plan?
    More tax cuts for the investment class? 
    -At what point do we wait before we kick in federal funds?   25% unemployment?
    As more and more businesses and banks fail, more and more jobs are lost, and the tax base falls even further....and the budget deficit grows even more.  What should we do about that?  Just wait it out?  Live off our savings?
  • Michael
    America needs the right to succeed and we do not truly have that right unless we also have the right to fail.  Some institutions should fail, as they are either obsolete or inefficient.  If we artificially prop up these institutions and people by way of keeping them in nearly forclosed homes, then we are not correcting the problem, merely postponing it.

    Some people should not be in the housing market.  Some should stay int the rental market for a while until they save up adequate money and stabilize their own financial situation to the point they can meet their obligations that they sign onto at the closing table.  The Republican plan is not to put at the expense of those who can do this for those who can not. 

    Cut spending.  When the economy recovers we can revisit some of these social programs but right now we can not afford the luxury.  Cut Corporate taxes and entice companies to move to the US instead of out of it.  Become competitive again by streamlining our automotive industries and perhaps even a consolidation.  None of that cost money, it saves it.  We come out of it better, not simply waiting for the other shoe to drop.  We will have to do this at some point and this administration, and the last one as well has determined the time is not now.
  • davidwwalters
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/krugma...
    "Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman, responding to the flak Jindal gave high-speed rail and volcano-monitoring, has labeled the GOP 'the party of Beavis and Butthead"
    So Bobby Jindal is the
    answer to Obama?  Wow!  A Rhodes Scholar?
    He has to be a smart guy, but his idea of somehow using the Katrina disaster as a template to how government should respond is a laugh.  Monitering volcanoes is a bad thing?  Tell that to Hawaii Gov. Laura Lingle....
    Gov. choose a poor speech writer, maybe he should write his own.......... (.......tell me he didn't write this one!)

    "The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead."-Paul Krugman (Nobel laureate)
  • davidwwalters
    This is my letter from Dennis Whitfield Executive Vice President of the American Conservative Union NO PLAN WHAT SO EVER! "-keep up the fight, stand firm and not fall prey to Barack Obama's all-out liberal agenda. "
    -IS THIS ALL THEY HAVE?

    Let me tell you what we didn't hear last night, David,
    Amid all of the glowing rhetoric, the TV cameras and the American heroes in the House gallery, we didn't hear President Barack Obama state his true intentions to pass an all-out, ultra-liberal agenda on the American people. We didn't hear President Obama explain why he has had to appoint three different people to be Commerce Secretary.  We didn't hear him explain why a large percentage of his cabinet appointees and  Members have had ethical clouds.  We didn't hear him explain why he said one thing about the stimulus bill when he called for no earmarks, but then did another by allowing a pork-filled, wasteful big government spending bill become law with his pen. What we saw last night was an attempt to further promote his constant message to the American people of, "Just stick with me and everything will be all right."
    This is just another thinly veiled attempt to draw applause in front of Republican leaders in an attempt to force them to back down from their calls for limited government, limited spending and conservative values.
    We need to support Republican leaders who opposed the big government spending stimulus bill.  We need to tell them - now - on our ACU Petition here to keep up the fight, stand firm and not fall prey to Barack Obama's all-out liberal agenda.
    Barack Obama says to the American people that we must be bipartisan.  He points to the Republicans and chides them to "do what is right" for the American people.  But what he wants them to do is look the other way as he passes an all-out, ultra left agenda.
    Under House Republican Leader John Boehner and the conservatives in Congress, the House Republicans stood firm and did not cast single solitary vote for the so-called stimulus bill.  Senate Republican leaders also stood firm and most of their Members voted no.  Those that didn't cut spending from the bill but it still remained a pork-filled, shift to more big liberal government as it passed.
    As Congressman John Boehner said on the floor of the House before the vote, most Democrats had not even read the "stimulus" bill - before they voted for it.
    We need to support Republican leaders who opposed the big government spending stimulus bill.  We need to tell them - now - on our ACU Petition here to keep up the fight, stand firm and not fall prey to Barack Obama's all-out liberal agenda.
    Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has correctly pointed out that the bill was more about a liberal agenda than stimulating our economy.
    Governor Jindal and some other courageous Republican Governors have even announced that they will reject part of the funds because they are wasteful, unnecessary or require more liberal taxing and spending from their state.
    We applaud conservative leaders for standing up and we want to join Governor Jindal in encouraging our U.S. House and Senate conservatives to stand firm. We need to support Republican leaders who opposed the big government spending stimulus bill.  We need to tell them - now - on our ACU Petition here to keep up the fight, stand firm and not fall prey to Barack Obama's all-out liberal agenda.
    Yesterday, ACU Chairman David Keene was invited to speak as a "Newsmaker" at the National Press Club, you may have read some of the stories from this event.   As David said, "Obama's plans to stimulate the economy with government spending will fail because they're wrong."
    David said, "The American people are drawing back, looking at their own budgets and saying debt is not such a good thing.  It won't take long for them to make the connection and say debt is not so good for the government either."
    And, having the government take over more pieces of American industry in an attempt to control our economy from Washington simply won't work.  Assurances that this is not the Obama administration's aim ring hollow as we see blueprints of their agenda.
    As the ACU has continued to point out for more than a year - nationalizing companies is another word for socialism.   We cannot allow our nation to continue on the liberal slide towards that reality.
    We need to support Republican leaders who opposed the big government spending stimulus bill.  We need to tell them - now - on our ACU Petition here to keep up the fight, stand firm and not fall prey to Barack Obama's all-out liberal agenda.
    It is a critical time in our nation.  As he pointed out in his speech last night, President Obama has only started in his efforts to re-make our country.
    We must stand up and fight back.
    We need to support Republican leaders who opposed the big government spending stimulus bill.  We need to tell them - now - on our ACU Petition here to keep up the fight, stand firm and not fall prey to Barack Obama's all-out liberal agenda.
    Thank you for your help.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis Whitfield
    Executive Vice President
    P.S.  This week, the ACU Foundation once again hosts CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, in Washington, DC.  This conference will allow conservative leaders to voice their agenda.  CPAC will also allow conservative Republican leaders on the Hill to hear support for their work.  We need to further bolster that support and show that people all across our nation - like you - are standing with them.  Please sign the petition, here today, and support ACU's efforts to make this happen. And, look for CPAC on C-Span or your evening news.




  • Michael
    Continuity with a twist....

    The Pentagon said Wednesday that top military officers and civilians had to sign a letter promising to keep details secret as they work on the military's budget. "This is highly sensitive stuff involving programs costing tens of billions of dollars"  Gates said.
    Gates remained as secretary under Obama after serving under President Bush, but
    this year is the first time he is requiring the non-disclosure statements.

    Would this be more or less transparent than under the last administration?  Walk the talk Obama!
  • davidwwalters
    "Walk the talk Obama"- Mary Matalin?
    No, it's Michael!
    Obama did say he would be a u niter, including republicans in his administration.  Perhaps he saw something in Secretary Gates.....maybe it was his vision on how cuts to the Pentagon could be carried out in a deliberate thoughtful manner......i don't know.  But soon the budget will be out and we'll see.
  • Michael
    "But soon the budget will be out and we'll see."  These aren't Republican spending bills, this is the Obama spending spree.

    Federal Budget Deficit
    To Hit $1.75 Trillion
    Obama's budget blueprint, due out later Thursday, provides the government an additional $250 billion if it needs to stabilize the financial system. The deficit is expected to hit $1.75 trillion this year.

  • davidwwalters
    Obama's budget blueprint, due out later Thursday, provides the government an additional $250 billion if it needs to stabilize the financial system. The deficit is expected to hit $1.75 trillion this year.-Michael(68)
    -again, why is the country in need of the remedies proposed by our president?
    Nothing that has happened in the past is affecting the state of our nation at present?
  • Michael
    -again, why is the country in need of the remedies proposed by our president?

    His, and his alone.  This is purely a Democrat Spending Plan (I call it Community Reinvestment Allocation Plan, or CRAP) but never the less, this is all yours.  If you think it will work, then you win.  If it goes the way of logic and history, then this will go down as the worse Presidency in history.  I love the fact that your party is All In, because that is what it will take Americans to wake up and realize they need to put them All Out.  Fools, and we will all pay the price, every last one of us, but if that is what it takes...then so be it.
  • Titus Hunt
    Michael-i have to post under this ID and don't know how long i can before this too crashes but i'm JackieM.

    The reason the liberals think we ALL need obama's load of crap that the smart people don't buy into is because he is the savior according to them.  you know, he offers hope but we don't know what that means because it is not concrete.  instead of really giving a damn about jobs for this country, it is better to just rely on the government to support everyone.  we both know that is a joke and without good ole American values and ingenuity, this country will sink.  obama's plan does not allow we as individuals to make choices for ourselves.  obama is encouraging us to work for the government, which will limit our opportunities and future.  as you know, small businesses are struggling/failing and need tax cuts and fair policies to survive.  but hey, what does common sense mean anymore when we have an idiot and his followers are running the show.  it is funny that the liberals complain about the "rich" getting richer but do not mind that the government is going to line the "rich" people's pocket with the government contracts for infrastructure.  ha!  i guess that is an exception too like obama's exceptions to his own rules.  hahahahahah!  to bad regular American's won't benefit in the long run with having to pay for higher prices.  now don't get me wrong, i don't mind infrastructure projects along with "real" tax cuts in a policy.  however, the infrastructure projects will be not be managed efficiently so our money will be going down a black hole with little to show for it.
  • Titus Hunt
    having trouble posting again!

    Michael-i have to post under this ID and don't know how long i can before this too crashes but i'm JackieM.

    The reason the liberals think we ALL need obama's load of crap that the smart people don't buy into is because he is the savior according to them.  you know, he offers hope but we don't know what that means because it is not concrete.  instead of really giving a damn about jobs for this country, it is better to just rely on the government to support everyone.  we both know that is a joke and without good ole American values and ingenuity, this country will sink.  obama's plan does not allow we as individuals to make choices for ourselves.  obama is encouraging us to work for the government, which will limit our opportunities and future.  as you know, small businesses are struggling/failing and need tax cuts and fair policies to survive.  but hey, what does common sense mean anymore when we have an idiot and his followers are running the show.  it is funny that the liberals complain about the "rich" getting richer but do not mind that the government is going to line the "rich" people's pocket with the government contracts for infrastructure.  ha!  i guess that is an exception too like obama's exceptions to his own rules.  hahahahahah!  to bad regular American's won't benefit in the long run with having to pay for higher prices.  now don't get me wrong, i don't mind infrastructure projects along with "real" tax cuts in a policy.  however, the infrastructure projects will be not be managed efficiently so our money will be going down a black hole with little to show for it.
  • Freedom
    If you wonder why we are in the crisis we are in, why your country is no longer recognizable, why individuality and success is now a crime, and why your freedom is under attack, you must watch this video from the 1980s by a KGB agent who explains why and how it all happened. http://atlas.victimofcapitalism.com/x/vq/24 "Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in [the] future what the beautiful society of EQUALITY and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy [and] frustrated people, and Marxist Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously they will join the [ranks] of dissenters; dissidents."
  • Dora
    "...because he is the savior according to them"
    no jackie,  according to you-  the only ones calling obama "the messiah",  the "savior", "the one", are rush, hannity, beck,  and YOU. try to get your talking points in order and attributed correctly.
    ...."you know, he offers hope but we don't know what that means because it is not concrete."
    oh?  have you not understood that your god is not very "concrete"? yet you seem to follow this idea closely.
    .. "obama is encouraging us to work for the government, which will limit our opportunities and future."
    where?  what? this statement of yours is pulled from the thin air (or a darker place)
    " ....it is funny that the liberals complain about the "rich" getting richer but do not mind that the government is going to line the "rich" people's pocket with the government contracts for infrastructure. ...."
    you know, jackie,  it's not about the rich getting richer.  it's about job creation, it's about getting credit to flow once again, it's about restoring confidence in people so they are not afraid to purchase, it's about addressing the urgent need to get the economy moving.  
    i am sorry that you are such a bitter, sour, ungrateful woman.
    over 1/2 million jobs lost in just january... you don't seem to care.
    you don't seem to understand the ripple effect of job loss. 
    try to have some empathy for those, through no fault of their own, have become victims of the economic downturn we now face.  and, consider this:  you will not go untouched.
  • Titus Hunt
    so many things are wrong with you post and your comments are too stupid to answer.  however, i'll respond to only part of your post--

    "i am sorry that you are such a bitter, sour, ungrateful woman." 
    YOU DIG DITCHES FOR A LIVING AND BE GRATEFUL FOR IT THEN, DUMB DORA!  what do i have to be grateful for from obama!  you are comparing obama to God with faith?  i don't think so.  you are wrong on so many levels it is laughable!  but hey, i hear people talking about their savior on the streets and don't have to hear it from TV.  so you are name calling?  you definitely don't practice what you preach.  you are definitely a hateful, nasty and ignorant person and have been called that by more than one person on this site so get a clue!
  • davidwwalters72
    Jackie.....
    <<
    YOU DIG DITCHES FOR A LIVING AND BE GRATEFUL FOR IT THEN, DUMB DORA!>>
    -Talk about hate....this is a very hateful statement jackie!
    .....and more than a bit hypocritical.
    <<
    what do i have to be grateful for from obama! >>
    -You should be grateful that we have a nation where the people can decide the policies they want for their country.  The people spoke in November....

    NEW HAVEN, CT–In a diagnosis that helps explain the confusing and contradictory aspects of the cosmos that have baffled philosophers, theologians, and other students of the human condition for millennia, God, creator of the universe and longtime deity to billions of followers, was found Monday to suffer from bipolar disorder
    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28484
    "Evidence of God's manic-depression can be found throughout the Universe, from the white-hot explosiveness of quasars to the cold, lifeless vacuum of space. However, theologians note, humanity's exposure to God's affliction comes primarily through His confusing propensity to alternately reward and punish His creations with little rhyme or reason."
  • Titus Hunt
    <!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 <![endif]--> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
    David--my comment was in response to her name calling so stop with defending her!  tell her to not dish it out if she doesn't want it back.  you never talk to me like that so i would never talk to you like that.  There were a lot of reasons people elected him but not for the reasons you think.  i have outlined them before on this site.  you promise every group everything they want and you get their vote.  you talk about hope and change to college kids.  they had no clue what it meant and admitted it but they bought it.  the blacks (not all) wanted history to be made.  some of the black people that i know didn't even follow his policies and the whole time i was standing in line to vote i listened to the conversations and it was obvious they didn't care what he stood for.  the color of his skin was all that mattered.  some of the interviews on TV proved it also.  so those are the majority that voted for him, David.  so the people spoke but most didn't know what they were talking about!
  • davidwwalters72
    <<David--my comment was in response to her name calling....>>
    -You know 2 wrongs don't make a right.....that math never adds up.  If Dora said something to offend, i wouldn't worry about it too much.  She may have a good reason. 
    <<There were a lot of reasons people elected him but not for the reasons you think.  i have outlined them before on this site>>
    -As i recall it was because he is a liar.....perhaps he is, who knows, only time will tell.  Again, it is a tough row to how for that man, what with the great shape Bush Jr. left the country in and all.  But we have a leader who will listen.....and listening is a key leadership principal....
    A man that would know is Secretary of Defense....Robert Gates, and he stated:
    "The defense secretary says Obama is somewhat more analytical and wants to hear from everyone in the room on an issue — and will call on people who don't speak up. Gates says Bush was interested in different points of view, but didn't go out of his way to get them." http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/0...
    -on some level ALL presidents have told a lie or two....it's just part of the game.  What IS important is leadership.  And i am anxious to see whether Obama has this attribute.  It is obvious that Bush Jr. had no leadership skills.  We need leadership.
  • Titus Hunt
    well so far obama has told a basket full and has only been in office a short time.  if you call leadership allowing pelosi running the show, i can tell you he is no leader.  he has even backed down from his rhetoric on Iraq.  he is not a leader for sure.  Bush was a better leader than obama is and Bush had a lot of faults.  Bush did a great job in guiding this country through 911 and that is a leader.  we will obviously differ in other areas as expected.  when i first started reading this site before i ever posted anything, dora was name-calling like no other.  i will not be disrepected and when a person consistently crosses the line by criticizing one's faith, especially when the subject is not about religion, all bets are off!
  • Michael
    Jackie,


    Sorry so long for the response back, long weekend.  The Obama Admin is playing off of the fears and lack of knowledge of Americans.  The Dow crashes (again) below 7,000 today and I guarantee you that tonight, the line will be that the market does not represent the overall economy and should not be a barometer of the success or failures of the current policy.  I would be willing to bet that the statements will be almost exactly (I should copywrite it) what I said.  And many people will just say, OK!.  This is not the truth.  The markets are forward looking and take into account ALL information and is one of the most accurate snapshots of sentiment, not to mention value, of the major producers in this country and worldwide.
    We never had to be here.  It did not have to be this bad.  A correction could have occurred, felt a bit of pain, and we would have come out on the other side of this sooner rather than later and valuations would have been much more in line with reality.  The gov. intervention stood in the way of this happening and we are about to repeat some of the worst mistakes that got us here and use it as an excuse to make more.  There is a solution to this and unfortunately the fact that politics got us into this it will have to be, in part, politics that gets us out of this with a 180 degree shift in 2010 and put back in place conservative (not just Republican) leaders who understand that they do not understand and rely on the wisdom of the market.


    David,
    Over the weekend I gave some thought to a point that you made about conflicts of interest.  Misguided conclusion, but good point.  Conflicts of interest are only a problem when the goals of the interested parties are conflicted (I assume you agree, as that is the definition)  What bigger conflict of interest than when the government takes a controlling interest in an institution?  A private enterprise's goal is profit.  A governments goal is conflicted with that as they make rules and regulations that are not profit driven, but rather constituency driven.  Two separate private enterprises will still seek profit, government influence, as was seen in housing sought to give to a segment of the economy that represented a significant voting block and therefor created a conflict of interest or conflict of goals.  This is the problem with nationalization and socialization, it does not act in the best interest of the institution but rather acts in a way that preserves power of the administration.  Make sense?
  • davidwwalters72
    << What bigger conflict of interest than when the government takes a controlling interest in an institution?>>
    Michael.....
    I love learning from the experts. 
    -But to answer your question.....it would be the Commodity Futures Modernization Act on December 15, 2000.  Tell us all about how that had no effect on the fall of the world's economic house of cards.
    Wasn't Phil Gramm's wife, Wendy Gramm on Enron's board?  I'm sure there was no conflict of interest there Michael.  So why didn't you school me on this? Damn!  I bet you simply forgot....that's OK -you're forgiven.
    But you b-da man!
  • Michael
    "Wasn't Phil Gramm's wife, Wendy Gramm on Enron's board?  I'm sure there was no conflict of interest there Michael.  So why didn't you school me on this? Damn!  I bet you simply forgot....that's OK -you're forgiven."

    I find it funny that you point out Phil Gramms wife being on Enron and without pointing out that when the GLB was signed, it was in part to oppose Walmart putting its a "Walmart Bank" inside of its stores and who sat on that board????Hillary Clinton! 

    So I agree with you, don't trust the government as they inherinently have a "CONFLICT OF INTEREST"
  • Michael
    But lets not revisit that, if you want to now talk about Enron, lets talk about Enron.  Enron had major influence over the Clinton Administration.  Mickey Kantor, Clinton's Commerce Secretary, helped Enron win a $100 million contract to build a 150-megawatt power plant in Croatia. National security adviser Tony Lake and Commerce Secretary Ron Brown helped Enron win contracts in Mozambique and India. Enron introduced the Clinton team to Lippo Industries and to John Huang, providers of questionable political money to Clinton, as they sought influence in the Clinton White House.  Did Wendy help these people secure these contracts?  Who by the way signed into law the bill in question here?
  • davidwwalters72
    -You sound like Karl Rove defending Bush's record.....i pity you Michael......
    ".....lets talk about Enron".  
    -You haven't explain how Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and The Commodity Futures Modernization Act DIDN'T act as the mechanisms that allowed the investments banking industry&insurance underwriters to cause the economic house of cards to collaspe.
    Tell us all....you're the expert.
  • Michael
    First, have I even mentioned Bush, let alone defended him.  I remember criticizing him on some liberal stances he took as a matter of a fact.  So I am going to have to say you are mistaken there.

    Second.  I have explained GLB time and time again and how it never led to a single foreclosure and was an instrument that affected Fannie and Freddie in the secondary.  I have tried and tried to explain to you that by the time these two bills which Clinton signed into law came about, the trend of ever growing subprimes was already underway.  So you disagree with two of Clintons Laws, that is fine, but still not the root cause.
  • Michael
    May 18 2007 Gordon Brown.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv5cqh26CC0

    March 1, 2023
    Gordon Brown.
    "British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will propose a "global new deal" to rescue the world's economy when he makes his first visit to the U.S. since President Obama's inauguration, the Times of London reports."

    What we are facing now doesn't compare to what we as a nation faced even in the early 80's yet this is the radical "fix" that is being proposed this week.  This isn't just something that was pulled out of thin air.  This is not about taking from the rich of this country and redistributing it to its poor, but taking from everyone and redistributing it to the rest of the world.
  • Michael
    David, you strike me as an ahead of the curve type guy.  This will be proposed this Wed.  Would you support Brown's global spending initiative?
  • Titus Hunt
    <!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 <![endif]--> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:1.0in; mso-footer-margin:1.0in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
    I tried to post this yesterday but it errored again--UC please help!
     
    Michael--you are correct!  They will have an excuse of why the markets are not so important!  it is ridiculous!  Because of my profession, i watch the markets for every twist and turn.  it is funny that the markets are down and there were two key market indicators that came out today that were positive.  hmmmm!  normally the markets would go up but for some strange "unknown" reason the market is continuing to decline.  let's see democrats can blame it on ................................................  a week or so ago a liberal that posts here periodically said in so many words that the markets didn't like obama's plan but that it was not a big deal.  i guess the continued market decline isn't important for welfare folks, and some others, but it is for people who are retired and live off investment income or people who work for a living and hope to have jobs and a retirement one of these days!  do you think obama is counting on the "dumbing down" of America to not notice that his plans are not working and will not work?  of course, everyone should just be faithful and be followers of obama because he will create some construction jobs next year or the next.  of course, raising taxes on those who employ people will make it worse but shhhhh i guess we can't tell the other side that!
  • davidwwalters72
    Michael(85).....
    D
    ef
    ending the policies of the Bush Administration( .....you know, de-regulation of markets, banking, underwriting) would be considered a de facto defense of Duhb-Ya....

    <<
    I have explained GLB time and time again and how it never led to a single foreclosure and was an instrument that affected Fannie and Freddie in the secondary.
    >>
    -In the secondary, do you mean the way the initial sub-prime loans made by banks were then chopped up and bundled, rated AAA and resold as bonds?
    Yes!  This is precisely what Gramm-Leach_Bliley did....and when these loans foreclosed, they led to the collapse of banks, underwriters, and hedge funds.  Maybe in your narrow argument you are correct....GLB didn't directly lead to foreclosures, but it did lead to the economic melt down.  Talk about obfuscation.
    <<So you disagree with two of Clintons Laws, that is fine, but still not the root cause.>> No, these were Phil Gramm's laws, he wrote 'em, and with great effort push them on the senate floor.  More obsfuscation.  And yes....these 2 laws were the root cause and in in no way have come up with an argument that changes that fact.
  • Michael
    "Defending the policies of the Bush Administration( .....you know, de-regulation of markets, banking, underwriting) would be considered a de facto defense of Duhb-Ya...."

    Intellectual fraud,  the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading.  Duhb-ya wasn't even in office when these bills were signed.  THEY WERE SIGNED BY BILL CLINTON.

    You aren't even worth my time.  You go around and around in circular arguments that misrepresent and omit crucial facts to a matter for your own benefit. " then chopped up and bundled, rated AAA and resold as bonds" by a GSE known better as Fannie and Freddie, not the bank who originated them as the GSE's do not originate or service loans as we have talked about time and time and time again.  I am not even saying you "obfuscate" you misrepresent and you omit.  You are an INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.
  • Michael
    Here is another reason that the markets are important and should not be dismissed...

    Public pensions in the U.S. had total liabilities of $2.9 trillion as of Dec. 16, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. Their total assets are about 30 percent less than that, at $2 trillion...With stock market losses this year, public pensions in the U.S. are now underfunded by more than $1 trillion...By law, states must guarantee public pension fund debts.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109...>
  • davidwwalters72
    Michael(89)
    <<Intellectual fraud,  the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading.  Duhb-ya wasn't even in office when these bills were signed.  THEY WERE SIGNED BY BILL CLINTON.>>
    uh, Clinton signed the bill (for whatever reason is the subject of an entirely different argument).....BUT WHO WAS THE AUTHOR?
    So saving face, you attack the messenger when you have no game.....
    Duhb-ya wholeheartly embraced de-regulation and you know it, and you defend it.  De-regulation is at the heart of the matter when it comes to How the market has crashed and all these banks, and investment firms have gone under.

    Again, you ignore facts and try to go back to the argument (which i showed to be false).....that fannie&freddie is the root of the problem 
    <<........
    not the bank who originated them as the GSE's do not originate or service loans as we have talked about time and time and time again>>
    The only reason banks made these bad loans was not because was NOT due to a federal regulator holding a gun to their heads.....NO, the banks made sub-prime loans to profit by the fees generated by.  -Fees generated because the market allowed banks to profit in this way.....WHY?   Because they(the lenders originating the loans) knew they could "chop up and bundled, rate them AAA and resell them as bonds"
    Not worth your time?  Why, because an uneducated guy like i, stands your MBA arguments on their heads?
    How was this accomplished Michael? (....i ask time and again, with no answer)
    -Was it the Community Reinvestment Act?
    .....or was it a law that de-regulated the banking, investment, and underwriting industry?
  • Michael
    "uh, Clinton signed the bill (for whatever reason is the subject of an entirely different argument).....BUT WHO WAS THE AUTHOR?"

    First, who signed it into LAW? Second, I don't disagree with the bill.  Your premise is flawed in that any forclosures, that no one but you doesn't think is the root of the problem, were affected in any way by the GLB.

    I have seen bills authored by Congressmen to do away with such things as term limits for the president, but they don't get "SIGNED INTO LAW". 

    "The only reason banks made these bad loans was not because was NOT due to a federal regulator holding a gun to their heads....."  Banks had to spend CRA money and make "good neighbor" type loans to segments of the population who had a default rate 6.5 times higher and 10 times the forclosure rate to meet housing goals that were set by Fannie Mae.  This was an effort by the feds to 1. increase housing 2. decrease practices of redlining.  The banks did make margins off the CRA money and under the gun of loosing it, had to spend it in defined areas.

    You either don't understand this and want to ignore it, or you do understand it and want to recharacterize it as a Bush thing.  Now tell me again how I am ducking your "hard questions" by ignoring all facts above.  Use your intellectual dishonesty and phony rhetoric to use some sort of tired comeback that says "this is the Republicans fault".

  • davidwwalters72
    <<First, who signed it into LAW? Second, I don't disagree with the bill.  Your premise is flawed in that any forclosures, that no one but you doesn't think is the root of the problem, were affected in any way by the GLB.>>
    -i do take notice how you use "GLB" instead of its name Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act....for reasons known only to Bill Clinton, he signed it(....uh, you know the bill crafted by Phil Gramm)....
    Michael, this act ALLOWED the practice of bundling sub-prime loans into AAA rated bonds.  No one else believes me?  You need to do some research(regardless of your expertise)....
    But something tells me you are aware of the facts as i have laid them out.....otherwise you'd not be so testy and defensive, reaching for that old stand-by of losers....attack the messanger if you can't dent the message...
    <<Use your intellectual dishonesty and phony rhetoric to use some sort of tired comeback that says "this is the Republicans fault">>
  • Michael
    "-i do take notice how you use "GLB" instead of its name Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act."
    Do you also take notice on how I say CRA so are you trying to say I am somehow inconsistent?

    You need to do some research(regardless of your expertise)....
    I need to research who?  Who do I need to tell me what I already know?  I do this everyday.  When I am not on here explaining it to you, I am doing it in my everyday life.  My wife does the same, much more in line with the issues that we are discussing here and has been on Television News and Newspapers talking about this and how it relates to urban development/pro and con.  Are you saying I should call her?  She reads your post as well and reiterates the same points, the same message that I am trying to get through to you.


    "But something tells me you are aware of the facts as i have laid them out."
    "Facts" as you have laid them out?  Rhetoric and misinformation either through your own misunderstanding or purposely distortion of the truth.  Some of your tactics have led me to believe the latter.  You have truncated speeches to fit your argument.  You have dismissed two entire decades that have led up to the current housing problem because the wrong names are on the bills and the politics behind them you agree with.  You are the one who employ circular arguments and intellectual dishonesty in your post.  This is what makes me say, not in anger, but in disgust of your debating tactics.
  • davidwwalters72
    <Who do I need to tell me what I already know?  I do this everyday.  When I am not on here explaining it to you, I am doing it in my everyday life.  My wife does the same, much more in line with the issues that we are discussing here and has been on Television News and Newspapers talking about this and how it relates to urban development/pro and con.>-Michael

    -T
    he analogy here would be Gen. Westmorland announcing to LBJ that America was winning in Vietnam in late 1967.
    -He was an expert, doing this everyday......yet he seem compelled to make this ridiculous statement.   And then Tet occurred. The good general lost all credibility.  He has about as much credibility as Cramer, Santelli, and perhaps even your wife.....We in America have so much misplaced deferrence to so-called experts.....
    For whatever reason, you seem compelled to blame our economic problems on loans to poor people(The Community Re-Investment Act).....even though they don't really account for a majority of the sub-prime loans. You seem compelled to place your hands over your eyes and yell na-na-na-na-na...... when i explain the way Gramm-Leach-Bliley and The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, both championed (yes, signed by Bill Clinton-another reason i dislike the man)by Phil Gramm. This had the effect of de-regulating the Banking, investment, insurance sectors. Oh yeah Michael, de-regulation is just what we should further to kick start our ailing markets, you should know, you do this everyday.
    So, you seem to be telling all of us peasants to trust your jusdgement, you're the EXPERTS ......when it was The Experts that led us down this road.
  • Michael
    "you seem compelled to blame our economic problems on loans to poor people(The Community Re-Investment Act).....even though they don't really account for a majority of the sub-prime loans."

    So I guess I have never brought up Interest onlys, ARMS, Baloons...this is the first you are hearing of it from me huh?  You think you can take an argument, rearrange the facts to suit your own and no one will notice.  I think you have just given up trying to make a honest argument.
  • davidwwalters72
    Michael(92).............<<Banks had to spend CRA money and make "good neighbor" type loans to segments of the population who had a default rate 6.5 times higher and 10 times the foreclosure rate to meet housing goals that were set by Fannie Mae......>>
    Again, did they profit from this, and more importantly,HOW did they profit from The Community ReInvestment Act?
    You don't seem to be able to answer the question......just deflecting my apt observations.  Did lending institutions meet these goals you mentioned?  Did they surpass these goals even?   WHY?  HOW?
    It seems there was something that motivated lending institutions to exceed these FannieMae goals  Could it be that taking sub-prime loans and turning them in to AAA rated bonds was wildly profitable.  How did this occur?
    << Now tell me again how I am ducking your "hard questions" by ignoring all facts above.>>-Michael
    -By not answering these pertinent questions.  The Community ReInvestment act dates from Carter's administration.  The number of sub-prime loans skyrocketed over the past 8 years......could it be you are obscuring the facts of the matter?
    << I think you have just given up trying to make a honest argument.>>
    So you can drop some terms(Interest onlys, ARMS, Baloons...), impress us with your "experience", and pretend that bundling sub-prime loans as AAA Bonds is nothing to address.....
    Try to avoid the question....Why?
    -seems you can't or won't answer.
  • Michael
    Again, did they profit from this, and more importantly,HOW did they profit from The Community ReInvestment Act?
    Again, I answered that in post 93.  They did make margins off these loans.  Banks tend not to make good loans or bad ones for free.  You need to better understand the relationship between banks, GSEs, and the market.

    Did lending institutions meet these goals you mentioned?  Did they surpass these goals even?
    Yes, as stated by Maxine Waters in a congressional hearing, Fannie Mae, under the leadership of Franklin Reins exceed the housing goals set by the CRA.  Once again, to my point of the government, well intentioned as they may have been, put forth lending policies that encouraged greater home ownership and to help stem redlining.  How many times do I have to repeat this?
    Could it be that taking sub-prime loans and turning them in to AAA rated bonds was wildly profitable.
    No, it was the origination of the loans with a lessened guidlines by the GSE.  The fact the loan was made is the primary issue, that is what leads right back to the default and forclosure rate.  The other is in the secondary markets and puts no pressure on existing mortgages ability to pay. 

    The number of sub-prime loans skyrocketed over the past 8 years
    Actually the percentage of subprimes began skyrocketing beginning in 1995.  The availability of the CRA was one thing, the mandate to increase the usage of the program was another.  2 changes were made to the CRA in 95, 1 was important, the other I don't know how much it really affected lending.  The important one was a change in regualatory compliance requirments that banks were no longer CRA compliant if they provided equal access to loans. They were only compliant if they provided equal outcomes to borrowers. Meaning a loan had to be made, not just made availabile. 

    Even then, not the whole story to the meltdown.  The subprimes defaults soon became Alt-A defaults.  Resets took place at the same time housing values began to slip.  The refi couldn't happen in many cases because of an appraisal that put the loan to value at an even higher rate than many qualified for.  Then builders began to lower housing prices to dump inventory that only lent to the problem of value. 

    Try to avoid the question....Why?
    -seems you can't or won't answer.

    I have given some of the most lengthy, in depth, and accurate explanations of anyone on this site.  The fact that you are politically motivated and want to say it is a republicans fault is just part of an agenda and causes you to to distort, leave out, and misrepresent the facts within the industry whos only knowledge that you have of was gleamed from a some left wing blog.
  • Michael
    If you really want to get into a Securitisation discussion with me, I have some time this weekend and I will lay out exactly, point by point how that works.  So if you really want to go down this road with me David, break out your Series 7 study guide and lets really explore your argument. 

    If you want to throw out a synopsis of your argument, that would be helpful so I don't miss, distort, or omit any "point" you may want to bring up.  I will give you some time here.....go!
  • davidwwalters72
    Michael(98)....
    <<
    No, it was the origination of the loans with a lessened guidelines by the GSE.  The fact the loan was made is the primary issue, that is what leads right back to the default and foreclosure rate.  The other is in the secondary markets and puts no pressure on existing mortgages ability to pay.>>
    -Trying to wrap my mind around your reasoning, i take into account your political leaning and your connection to this problem professionally. 
    The part of the statement you made in (98) sheds some light on our differences of opinion. 
    I keep asking why lenders may be inclined to suggest borrowers skew their incomes or assets in order to qualify for a larger loan? Yes, the the borrowers may turn out to be unable to afford their payments but the lenders still made the loans and collected a hefty profit. 
    There have been GSE's for quite some time Michael, but only since the early parts of this decade has there been such a proliferation of this practice, (....lenders suggesting borrowers lie about their income to get a loan)
    Again, i go back to my silly visualization.....a government bureaucrat holding a gun to a lenders head to loan money  to poor people....
    Yet it seems NO ONE was holding a gun to lenders heads, yet they made the loans because they(the lenders) knew they'd profit, regardless of whether they thought the loan would default. WHY?
  • davidwwalters72
    Why were the loans made in the first place is a good question.  Was it due to government pressure, or the lenders vision of profit?
  • davidwwalters72
    Author: Michael
    Comment:
    <<David, you strike me as an ahead of the curve type guy.  This will be proposed this Wed.  Would you support Brown's global spending initiative?>>
    -Can't say i know a thing about it, but i will research....
    any non-partisan links?
  • Michael
    I keep asking why lenders may be inclined to suggest borrowers skew their incomes or assets in order to qualify for a larger loan?
    First, if they asked a person to lie, then they are guilty of fraud.  If the applicant lied, they are guilty of fraud.  The only real case where an applicant could just flat out lie without proof of income, tax documentation etc. is in a stated income loan.  High risk loan and I am not sure what the specific default rate is on those types of loans (I will try and look it up sometime) and as I said before, people in a cash industry, hair dressers, waiters/waitresses, and many other service industry positions do not claim tips that make up the vast majority of their income.  Should they get loans in the future?

    the the borrowers may turn out to be unable to afford their payments but the lenders still made the loans and collected a hefty profit.

    Doesn't exactly work that way.  Origination fees are collected in closing cost on the loan but when the loan is sold it is sold as a high risk loan ranging from Alt-A, B, BBB, or C.  In the mortgage market, dependent on the quality of the borrower, a mortgage is prime, sub-prime, or Alt-A.  A Prime borrower is one who has good credit, strong debt-to-income and provides all necessary docs, including tax history, residence history etc.  A subprime is to a borrower who does not qualify for prime or is a second mortgage.  Alt-A is to a borrower who has issues with documentation but is still of good quality. 
    The spreads have traditionally been high on subprimes but the default rate has been low due to the rising housing market and therefor making the risk palatable.  If you want to look for where the profit was being made, look at the Hedge funds which were the one's that were providing the equity to the Collateralised debt obligation market.  The rate of return on a BBB or BB was upwards of 300 basis points.
    "There have been GSE's for quite some time Michael, but only since the early parts of this decade has there been such a proliferation of this practice"
    How did they forge all those W2's I wonder?  I mean the lender still answers to an underwriter who request info upon info, verifications of verification.  They will even call your employer for income verification and work status.  That is a lot of liers!!!  Look up Stated Income Loans.  And even then, the possibility of these types of loans came about in 1980.  Should loan applicants today have to qualify for, not todays interest rates, but the possibility of say 10%, 12%, or 15% interest rates to avoid some of the ARM resets that we have seen?  That would lock a lot of people out on the low income end to home ownership, but what do you think?  And should we have never had a stated income loan, locking out those in the cash business from financing?Again, i go back to my silly visualization.....a government bureaucrat holding a gun to a lenders head to loan money  to poor people....
    Yet it seems NO ONE was holding a gun to lenders heads, yet they made the loans because they(the lenders) knew they'd profit, regardless of whether they thought the loan would default.
    I seem to have given the answer to this about a half dozen times now but here it is again.  The goal of the government was to raise homeownership in the US and to make it available to a wider range of income levels.  Nobel Goal!  CRA money was given to banks, banks, in order to stay in compliance had to make the "good neighbor" loans and then the paper was sold with spreads, like the one I mentioned above, that reached 300 bps.  With a rising housing market and easy credit made available by low interest rates and creative financing including ARM, I/O and negative amatorisation mortgages which as I stated above, had low default rates due to rising prices that allowed greater liquidity of the asset.
    You are attributing todays market realities to yesterdays loans and policies.  That doesn't work if you want to make an honest assesment of the housing situation which I am not convinced you do.

    Would you support Brown's global spending initiative?>>

    -Can't say i know a thing about it, but i will research....
    any non-partisan links?

    Sure, YouTube.  Gordon Brown just gave a speech to a joint session of Congress.  Listen to it and while you are at it, skip back about 2 years and listen to him propose the same thing under different economic circumstances.  Let me know what you think, I am curious because I don't believe any of the left wing blogs have given talking points regarding the issue just yet so I want to hear David's analysis.
  • Michael
    "Why were the loans made in the first place is a good question.  Was it due to government pressure"
    CRA compliance is one of the factors taken into consideration when approving or rejecting new branches or mergers and acquisitions.  The supervising of the banks are the same agencies who do the exams for the CRA which include the FDIC, OCC, OTS and FFIEC. 

    And then comes the juicy part....
    In October 1997, First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launched the first publicly available securitisation of Community Reinvestment Act loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. The securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and had an implied "AAA" rating.  It had an implied AAA rating because it was coming from a Government Sponsered Enterprise.  We can keep going around and around about this David.
  • Michael
    So help me out here, who was in office in 97?  Was it Dub-ya or Bubba?

    Could you also tell me anything about the differences in the Bliley-Dingell-Leach Act of 1998 and the differences you disagree with the revised Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999?  It all leads back to the CRA and Gramm wanting to limit the number of banks that fell under CRA compliancy especially after the 1995 changes that allowed for "extortion" from community groups who were allowed to oppose mergers and acquisitions based on accusations of non-compliance.

    Do you still want to stick with your same argument David?
  • Michael
    Was the issuance of 384.6 million in 1997 by First Union and Bear, Stearns the result of legislation from 1999?
  • Michael
    "You don't seem to be able to answer the question......just deflecting my apt observations."
    Did that answer any of your questions regarding your "apt" observations?
  • HWStone
    "this act ALLOWED the practice of bundling sub-prime loans into AAA rated bonds.  No one else believes me?  You need to do some research(regardless of your expertise)...."

    I guess that you now see why no one believes you and they believe the expert.  How does a law passed in 1999 affect Freddie Mac in guaranteeing securities at AAA in 1997?  Are you misinformed David or are you just lazy and not do any research?  If you don't want to do the research, then perhaps you should just listen to the experts then huh!
  • HWStone
    "You seem compelled to place your hands over your eyes and yell na-na-na-na-na...... when i explain the way Gramm-Leach-Bliley and The Commodity Futures Modernization Act,"

    David, I am embarrassed for you!  My god man, could you have dug yourself a deeper hole?  And then you go on to bash people in the business in the same post WOW!  You were so vested in your argument that had no truth to it at all and now what? 

    I can't find anything in any of your post that hold up to the information that Michael just layed out.  Not in the GLB, not in AAA rated bonds, not in the CRA requirements, not in anything. 

    If you post again on here then you have more guts than I do because I would never show my face on a blog or anywhere where I have been humiliated and shown to either be a fool or a liar.  But I have no doubt, DavidWWalters72 will pop right back on with some new lie.  The truth will set you free David....what an idiot!

    If you are new to this blog,  just skimming through, or even a long time reader I recommend you read David vs Goliath (Michael) and see the tactics of the liberals vs the truth. Stand up like Michael did against liars like David and the truth will win every time!
  • davidwwalters72
    uh, Michael....
    NEWS FLASH!
    -D
    avid
    CLEANED Goliath's Clock!  Kinda the way i have truthfully KICKED YOUR ASS!
    AND I CAN KEEP ON DOING IT....
  • davidwwalters72
    Michael,
    -A
    s
    i have stated before, the sure sign of a loser is when the name calling begins.....
    <<
    The truth will set you free David....what an idiot!>>
    So, let me straighten you out, boy.....
    Before Gramm-Leach-Bliley and under Glass-Steagall, before the repeal of Glass-Steagall, your mortgage was between two entities, you and your bank. If you defaulted, your bank took the hit. Gramm-Leach-Bliley connected your bank to Wall Street(can you say De-Regulation, AssHole?) and allowed it to sell your mortgage to investors and financial institutions. These investors in turn sold the mortgages to more investors, often in complicated bundles and using exotic financial tools like the credit-default-swap.  After passing through layers of investors, many of whom were respectable banks like Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, etc. (since these institutions were “responsible,” rating agencies gave these mortgages AAA safety ratings), bundles of subprime mortgages were being marketed as sound investments. The entire chain became overleveraged, and once you, the buyer, couldn’t pay your mortgage, the defaults had a cascading effect throughout the entire financial system. Whereas before Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the default would have been limited to you and your bank.
    Michael, you are such a whore....and not very bright to have claimed an MBA.
  • davidwwalters72
    HWStoned.....
    <<
    perhaps you should just listen to the experts then huh!>>
    -Y
    ou
    mean the same so-called experts(like Michael, with his MBA?)that have gotten our country into such an economic catastrophe?
  • Michael
    Are you saying David that the secondary was created by the GLB now?  All mortgages before 99 were portfolio loans by the banks?  The GLB created the secondary?  Then who in this world did First Union CM and Bear, Stearns on October 20, 2023 sell the securities of Community Reinvestment Act loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. The same securities which were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and had an implied "AAA" rating? 

    Those last post of yours seemed just lashes of rage by you so calm down, and answer my questions to you and stop obfuscating.
  • Michael
    "Michael, you are such a whore...."

    ha ha ha ha, ho ho ho ho....I swear, you are killing me over here!!!!!!

    YOU GOT ALL OF YOUR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS FROM YAHOO ANSWERS!!!!!!
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081221082602AAFP45W

    Is this just a joke to pull my leg?  Come on, you are joking right, this isn't serious.  No one is that dumb!
  • Jr Accountant
    Dear God.

    You two (Michael and David) make it worthwhile just to get out of bed every morning. If I write more can we gravitate to my next post on the THIRD stimulus that might be America's fate? PLEASE??

    http://www.jrdeputyaccountant.com/2009/03/two-s...
  • Michael
    So what are James L's credentials on Yahoo Answers Blog????....ha ha ha ha ha!!!!  No credibility at all David.  None whatsoever and I am the "whore" huh!
  • Michael
    Jr. Accountant
    I will go where David AKA James L. goes.  I am laughing my ass off over here!
  • Jr Accountant
    Seriously, getting e-mail confirmations of this conversation makes my work day all that much more interesting. Wherever the argument goes, so will David. Seduce his ass over there. For the sake of my sanity ;)
  • Michael
    Done!
  • davidwwalters72
    Michael
    -No rage,
    but as i said.....name calling is the last resort of a loser.  It would seem that i have hit on something that you wish would go away
    <<Are you saying David that the secondary was created by the GLB now?>>
    -No, that's what you'd like me to say to attempt to win your set piece argument, but that's not how it works.
    ....what i have been hammering away with you  is that De-Regulation of  banking, insurance, and investing is the mechanism that broke down firewalls created by Glass-Steagall during the Great Depression....
    -Credit default swaps were unregulated by The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and with unregulated credit default swaps, there seems to be a so-called "ballooning" of bad loans made.....
    My friend Michael, and his cheerleaders want us to believe the problem of bad loans is due to The Community Re Investment Act, in and of itself.
    -Not true..... Hell, we've had Community Re-Investment since Carter's administration....so why the ballooning of "swaps" all of a sudden over the past 8 years?  Any(good) ideas?
    The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, was inserted into a spending bill By Phil Gramm
    "President Clinton signs the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, giving the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) shared oversight of single stock futures. Other sections of the act carve out a separate group of derivatives and exempt them from regulation under either authority. The most prominent of the unregulated derivatives is credit default swaps (CDS), essentially insurance policies covering losses on securities in the event of default. The act allows hedge funds, investment banks and insurance companies to trade CDS with minimal supervision. Neither regulatory body has the authority to guarantee that the institutions have the assets to cover the losses they are guaranteeing."
    http://palisadeshudson.com/sentinel/198
    All of a sudden we see credit default swaps becoming very popular....not that this act invented them.
    -Is this a lie?   Is this obfuscation?  No, i think not.

    <<....
    and answer my questions to you and stop obfuscating.>>
    ....it has been my quest for quite sometime to explain the link between De-Regulation of banking, insurance, and investing by Gramm-Leach-Bliley and The Commodity Futures Modernization Act
    Prior to these, credit default swaps (insurance on credit securities) were allowed but Were REGULATED.  This  been my point since the beginning. After 2000,The Commodity Futures Modernization Act allowed credit default swaps to became DeRegulated allowing insurers to issue the swaps without any reserves causing the market to balloon....

    So there you have it, Mr. MBA "expert"......
    It was experts such as Michael, Rick Santelli, and Jim("Bear Stearns is not in trouble") Cramer that have excuses after the fact for market loses(excuses that excuse them from any culpability).....but where were these experts a year or two ago?  Exploiting the system and making money, i am sure.
    Trading these derivatives, and really screwing up America.  Thanx Michael....great job!
    So laugh your ass off.....but what you & your friends have done to our nation isn't very funny, dick.
  • davidwwalters72
    MichaelR(105)......
    <<And then comes the juicy part....
    In October 1997, First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launched the first publicly available securitisation of Community Reinvestment Act loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. The securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and had an implied "AAA" rating.  It had an implied AAA rating because it was coming from a Government Sponsered Enterprise. We can keep going around and around about this David.>>

    -OK
    genius, "We can keep going around and around about this............"
    -E
    x
    plain plain to us again what derivatives are and how they got to be such a part of our system  (especially these past eight(8) years or so.....)?
    "The CDS(credit default) market has ballooned from $631 billion in 2000 to over $17 TRILLION at the end of 2005."
    Whoa!!!  How do you suppose this happened, genius?  Naw....that lil ol DeRegulation didn't have nothin' to do with dat!
    http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7bGekY19t0c...

    So, you ("expert" that you are) seem to be saying we had credit default swaps  (The process of aggregating similar instruments, such as loans or mortgages, into a negotiable security) -http://www.investorwords.com/4445/securitization.html
    ........all along?
  • HWStone
    Word for word from Yahoo Answers!!!! That is beyond embarrassing.  Someone called you out early on about getting your info from sources like this and BAM!!!!, there it is.  That is hysterical!


    "-As
    i have stated before, the sure sign of a loser is when the name calling begins.....Michael, you are such a whore....Deregulation, Asshole."

    For the first time,  I agree, you David are a looser!  This is pitiful-- funny, but pitiful. 
  • HWStone
    -Not true..... Hell, we've had Community Re-Investment since Carter's administration....so why the ballooning of "swaps" all of a sudden over the past 8 years?  Any(good) ideas?

    OOOOOOHHHHH, I got one. Could it be that the community Reinvestment Act was written in 77 but then modified in 1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999, and 2005????  Am I right?   Dude, yahoo answers could have told you all of this, just ask!  Heck, I don't know anything about finance and that was easy to find.
  • MAS1916
    Geithner tipped the administration's hand on this.  If there was in fact an economic plan, he could probably find a couple Democrats that had paid their taxes to hire on at Treasury.  Even some rock solid lefties who passed Econ 101 understand the iceberg that the USS Obama is headed for.   This method of handling a recession is a proven failure.

    If Congress grows a backbone, we might stay afloat.
  • davidwwalters72
    HWStoned....
    <<
    For the first time,  I agree, you David are a looser!  This is pitiful-- funny, but pitiful.
    >>
    -uh,can you say David&Goliath?.....perhaps it's short attention span, i dunno.
    But this ongoing argument between Michael(Goliath?), and me(David)
    is kinda like John Stewart(David)..........
    going after the Goliath (Jim Cramer).....yeah, Goliath wins every time, huh? -Oh, by the way.....Watch Thursday night on Comedy Central when Cramer(....who also is bald) will be a guest on "The Daily Show".  Lrt's see Goliath, once more ding David!

    -However, what is pitiful, HWStoned, is the party of Lincoln stooping to the racially tinged level of blaming Freddie&Fannie(.....and by extension, people of color)  for our current economic problem......
    -Lemme break it down for ya.......
    this ongoing argument between Goliath,the so-call expert(akaMichael) and me, IS that, as he says... -People of color caused our economic meltdown, or as i have championed, Deregulation is the culprit.....

    "
    Prior to GLB, credit default swaps (insurance on credit securities) were allowed but were regulated. In 1999, credit default swaps became unregulated allowing insurers to issue the swaps without any reserves causing the market to balloon from about $900 billion to between $50-$70 trillion within 7 years. Credit default swaps did not directly cause the current problems but instead exasperated the problem once defaults started to occur.Credit default swaps were issued by insurance companies, hedge funds, private equity companies, and occasionally banks
    "

    -I
    stand corrected for not giving "asker" credit here, though it is pertinent to the present argument that Deregulation, not Freddie&Fannie caused Credit Default Swaps to balloon out of proportion suddenly...
    So lets back this up.....
    http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7bGekY19t0c...
    -Read the first paragraph, and they state the same thing......Credit Default Swaps have ballooned since 2000.
    HWStoned(124).....<<OOOOOOHHHHH, I got one. Could it be that the community Reinvestment Act was written in 77 but then modified in 1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999, and 2005????  Am I right?   Dude, yahoo answers could have told you all of this, just ask!  Heck, I don't know anything about finance and that was easy to find.>>
    -Dude, Are you trying to tell all who are reading that "Community Reinvestment" caused Credit Default Swaps to balloon?  Really?
    Your logic is flawed.  And the majority of Americans understand the bankruptcy of your ideas, and ideals.  So go on, attack the messenger.....
    because that is all you CAN do when your argument (Freddie&Fannie, NOT deregulation caused economic meltdown) is so utterly flawed.
  • davidwwalters72
    Jackie(126)
    <<
    i wonder where the democrats think we are going to get all of this money?
    >>
    -T
    he same place that George W. Bush and all the other congressional republicans(.....oh, John McCain was against tax breaks for the rich initially)
    got there money when they plunged us into trillions of dollars of debt by cutting taxes for only the rich, and creating a needless war in Iraq(didn't that cost $10BILLION/Month?).....i am sure you howled about that back then too?
    MAS1916(125)......
    <<
    Even some rock solid lefties who passed Econ 101 understand the iceberg that the USS Obama is headed for.   This method of handling a recession is a proven failure.
    >>
    -i
    t
    hink you forgot American History101 here my friend......
    -Was it tax cuts and reduced federal spending that ended the Great Depression?  FDR's spending in the 1930's improved the lot of many, yet it was not enough to lift our nation, totally out of its economic malaise.  It took MASSIVE federal spending in the form of military expenditures to end the Great Depression.
  • davidwwalters72
    (128)....
    "
    .....got there money...."
    -should be "got their money"
    ......sorry.
  • SteveS
    David, I have been following yours and Mike's discussion about housing and I would like for someone to answer some questions for me.  I am a life long democrat, 55 years old with a wife.  We purchased a home almost 5 years ago for 120,000 in a neighborhood just outside of downtown that was just beginning to turn around. 
    About a 3 years ago, my mortage rate went up and my monthly payment went up almost 250 dollars a month.  I put my house up for sale and I recieved one extremely low offer after another and then the offers just stoped.  My payment went up again, this time by about 70 or 80 bucks but still was paying 300 more per month then I originally budgeted for.  I fell behind on my payments by almost 6000 dollars and I lost my house. 
    I and my wife are living in an apartment now and are happy.  But how did some derivitave or some law cause me to loose my house in forclosure?  I flubbed up, other people flubbed up to including my neighbor who just walked out on his house one day leaving the keys in the mailbox.  Nothing that happened on Wall street effected me on Crabtree Circle.  Please explain to me how these derivatives made any of us loose our homes, and that is the problem right now, people not making their payments.  I read the articles, Forclosure problem must be fixed!  Not derivative problem must be fixed, or the Gram law must be changed. 

    I don't know if you are really thinking this through dave, but you may be smarter than me so break it down for me.
  • Dora
    it's too bad you don't understand thing one about the tattoo removal, titus...not surprising... just as gov. jiminy cricket from Louisiana  did not understand about volcano watching... but then... when you only read the first sentence you never learn anything beyond that.

    i could not be more pleased to see you and bobby jiminy in the same ideological club.  
    carry on.  please, carry on... you always do.
  • Michael
    as he says... -People of color caused our economic meltdown, or as i have championed, Deregulation is the culprit.....

    And once again, you lie.  Copy and paste my words, show me that is not an out and out lie.  You manage now to be dishonest without the intellectual tag in front of it.

    This shows political ideology is no substitute for experience and education although you somehow want to say an MBA is a tag of shame...WTF.  You try and mislead by saying the CRA has been around since 77 yet make no mention or even acknowledge any of the changes made throughout its history even though I have documented some on here that did have a direct effect on lending.

    I knew someone else was making your argument and that is why there was no depth or movement...because you were stuck to a script Mr. Yahoo Answers? 

    Now its derivatives.  If you are hell bent on discussing the Wall Street side vs Main St. then ok.  First, and this is undebatable, a loan must be made.  Before it can ever be packaged, guaranteed by a GSE, packaged and sold on the secondary, A LOAN MUST BE MADE.  It all starts on Main Street and works its way to Wall Street.  A mortgage is a leveraged product and is pooled into a securtity, that too is a leveraged product.  CDO's purchase this equity, which is a leveraged vehicle.  Hedge funds supply the equity in the CDO and that too is leveraged.  A single dollar in equity might actually create assets of leveraged at 1000 times.  Those credit deriviteves you are talking about are bets on the defaults of equities where most money was made due to the high amount of subprimes that where what....defaulting at a rate of 6.5 times higher than prime.  You can see it all happen on the index ABX.HE.

    All the different leveraged products are connected.  Loans default, for reasons that included intrest rate resets and declining housing prices therefor sending many mortgage brokers into bankruptcy or close to it including HSBC, Countrywide, Wells Fargo, and New Century.  That caused the Hedge Funds in many cases to go bankrupt who were so highly vested in housing securitisation and the trades on the ABX.HE were ravaged.  Then ratings agencies jumped in and downgraded CDO's.  Then the leverage financing supply all but stopped.  Cost of capital was higher due to higher credit spreads.  The sub-prime credit derivatives indices were tanked.

    And none of that means a hill of beans to anyone who lost a home.  None of that was at the beginning of the equation except defaults and foreclosures which led to the leveraging meltdown that acted like a loss multiplyer. 

    From tech to tulips, markets overheat.  When there is irrational exubrance in any market and the price goes up and up with out the underlying principles to support it then you get what many markets are facing today.  If you stand in the way and slap the invisable hand away, then the recovery is prolonged and potentially much more painful and widespread due to the inevitable unintended consequences.

    David, take time and actually read what I have written
    .  I have not changed my story once from the beginning.  I have not copied someone elses work.  I have not given into any one political ideology that lays blame at any 1thing.  This was an orchestra that saw Main Street fail, Wall Street fail, and Washington fail as well. 

    P.S.
    None of this came from Yahoo Answers.
  • Michael
    "-Read the first paragraph, and they state the same thing......Credit Default Swaps have ballooned since 2000."

    Perhaps we should read along together.  "driven especially by the growth in hedge fund strategies" You are right, they said pretty much the same thing I did above.

    nd strategies
  • Michael
    Economist give Obama an "F"

    http://online.wsj.com/video/economists-give-oba...

    Before any of the KoolAid drinkers pop on here and bash the source to divert attention away from the information, why don't you give me a news source that we can both agree on and after that, we will see what they are reporting.
  • davidwwalters72
    <<as he says... -People of color caused our economic meltdown, or as i have championed, Deregulation is the culprit.....
    And once again, you lie.  Copy and paste my words, show me that is not an out and out lie.  You manage now to be dishonest without the intellectual tag in front of it.>>-Michael(131)
    ....And i haven't changed my story.....
    -if you attempt to say that Fannie&Freddie in and of itself caused this economic meltdown.....then the shoe fits my friend.
    -excuse my short answer, i'll post more after i return from the Durham VA hospital.
  • Michael
    "-if you attempt to say that Fannie&Freddie in and of itself caused this economic meltdown.....then the shoe fits my friend."
    to say that all who had a mortgage guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie are "people of color" is crazy and shows an ignorance of the Equal Housing Laws.  To make the assumption is racist on your part. When you do not have the Yahoo Answers script to go off of then you start resorting to this. 

    If you have some unresolved race issues along with your class envy and hatred towards anyone not like you, then talk to a counselor.  It may just be your lack of education coupled with the isolation of living in the backwoods of North Carolina, but I believe that if you just get out there, interact with people of different colors, religions, and educational backgrounds you will see that we are all alike.  Let your hate and racism go.
  • jane dough
    I saw your photograph,  Michael.  Are you related to Rush Limbaugh?  You could be his brother.
  • Michael
    Why thank you!  But no.
  • Titus Hunt
    Dora--save the tattoo removal explaining.  i would rather give the money to people who have the ability to create many, many jobs and not just to a select few.  i would rather help people who are in a bind through no fault of their own.  it would be nice to show them how to succeed and let them prosper on their own.
  • Titus Hunt
    Michael--being a conservative fosters so many complements!1  ha!  I am proud to be right with ya!  Just for shits and giggles, I decided to read a liberal blog.  I know it was a stupid mistake!  I was laughing my ass off at the absolute lack of knowledge and understanding of what is actually happening.  It was "go obama" and "show the republicans" and obama is cleaning up this mess."  now obviously these folks don't have the knowledge of the economy and markets necessary to make that judgment and they are dismissing the people in their own party who are not happy with obama's policies.  of course, they are neglecting the experts' opinions in the field like the economists.  obviously, at no time in their discussions does common sense come into play.  for liberals it is easier to sit on the sidelines and cheer the losers in Washington on and have no understanding of what they are cheering for unless they want America to fail.  if they want this country to continue to decline as a result of obama's policies, we are on the right track.  I truly think we have hit the rock bottom with stupidity.  I really can't imagine it going any lower but will never say never.  they even had the nerve to talk about "honesty."  I guess those folks are deaf and live in a barn somewhere?  i really don't have the reasons for this but maybe liberals use a different dictionary than the rest of us?  hmmm!  Is this new low becoming the norm?  I guess the definition of leadership has also changed.  obama had his chance to prove he was a leader by going against his party and standing up for wasteful spending.  he blew it!  imagine that!  of course, as usual he talked out of both sides of his mouth about change.  it is politics as usual and his campaign rhetoric is just that.  so yes, i'm proud to be a true conservative republican and know that those basic values are missing in Washington.  p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:1.0in; mso-footer-margin:1.0in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
  • davidwwalters72
    <<to say that all who had a mortgage guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie are "people of color" is crazy and shows an ignorance of the Equal Housing Laws.  To make the assumption is racist on your part. When you do not have the Yahoo Answers script to go off of then you start resorting to this.>>-Michael( ......looks like Rush Limbaugh?)R

    "S
    triving to be an informed citizen, I am researching the financial meltdown. I'm going to give you my understanding of how the GLB act and the credit-default-swap contributed to the crisis, and I'd like you to tell me if it is accurate and, if not, critique it."


    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200...>

    "Before GLB and under Glass-Steagall, before the repeal of Glass-Steagall, your mortgage was between two entities, you and your bank. If you defaulted, your bank took the hit. GLB connected your bank to Wall Street and allowed it to sell your mortgage to investors and financial institutions. These investors in turn sold the mortgages to more investors, often in complicated bundles and using exotic financial tools like the credit-default-swap, something I still don’t understand. After passing through layers of investors, many of whom were respectable banks like Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, etc. (since these institutions were “responsible,” rating agencies gave these mortgages AAA safety ratings), bundles of subprime mortgages were being marketed as sound investments. The entire chain became overleveraged, and once you, the buyer, couldn’t pay your mortgage, the defaults had a cascading effect throughout the entire financial system. Whereas before GLB, the default would have been limited to you and your bank.
    "

    -A
    good question posed by James L.  This is how i see the results of Deregulation.......
    And to muddy the waters (.....the way Ari Fleischer did on Chris Matthews'
    show on Wednesday) by dropping the Freddie&Fannie bomb the way you do IS calculated to inspire a racial tone to the many people who ARE racist, and believe that loans to low income people is in the same vein as the "Welfare Queens" crap that Ron Reagan was so happy to use to garner support from former racist southern whites who were formally democrats(.....can you say Strom Thurmond?)

    <<
    It may just be your lack of education coupled with the isolation of living in the backwoods of North Carolina, but I believe that if you just get out there, interact with people of different colors, religions, and educational backgrounds you will see that we are all alike. >>

    -I
    have found that education is overrated unless it is backed up with experience.  My experience in life  is indeed rich, and it includes a fair balance of physical toil(....as in using a real shovel to dig ditches), as well as a degree in Civil Engineering.
    .....Class envy?  Yeah, i resent rich trust fund baby s, who use that money dad or whoever gave them, and then like to bitch about those of lesser means trying to get a leg up in life by having access to a level playing field.  Michael, i'll continue to rely on my education AND experience in life.....it seems to trump your MBA!
  • Michael
    Did you seriously just go back recopy someone's opinion from Yahoo Answers...AGAIN?  Do you even know who the person is on the other side giving the answer?  You would have flunked a high school paper with something as foolish as that and the fact you don't get that shows the caliber of person I am "debating" and I use that term loosely.

    racist southern whites who were formally democrats(.....can you say Strom Thurmond?)
    This is not even a challenge any more.  Can you say Ex-Klansman and current democrat senator Robert Byrd.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FIBJt-c2o0

    David, I have wasted enough time on you, you sir are lost in a fog of political ideology that has such a strangle hold on you that I or anyone else will never get you to see any sort of reality.
  • Michael
    "by dropping the Freddie&Fannie bomb the way you do IS calculated to inspire a racial tone to the many people who ARE racist"
    Would you care to site a statistical number of how many of these loans were made to blacks or any other color for that matter?  This only seems to "inspire" racism in you and I would like to know why.
  • davidwwalters72
    Michael(142).....
    <<
    Would you care to site a statistical number of how many of these loans were made to blacks or any other color for that matter?  This only seems to "inspire" racism in you and I would like to know why.>>

    By your promotion of the discredited notion that Fannie&Freddie is The Cause of the current economic crisis, you are feeding into the ignorance of many on the right who are looking for a scapegoat.  I find this particularly insidious since you are in a position to know better and are purposefully misleading them in a way that Nazi's misled Germans in the 1920's about Jewish culpability  with respect to the WW1 armistice.....
    Pointing out that racism is racist?  As with most ALL of your stated positions this once again shows how ridiculous your arguments are, how weak your position really is. 
    "Before Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ....... before the repeal of Glass-Steagall, your mortgage was between two entities, you and your bank." -James L.
    -This seems to be a fair statement, and you don't want to address it.  Why?
    You don't like the author?

    "If you defaulted, your bank took the hit. GLB connected your bank to Wall Street and allowed it to sell your mortgage to investors and financial institutions. These investors in turn sold the mortgages to more investors, often in complicated bundles and using exotic financial tools like the credit-default-swap......" -James L.
    -Is this false? 
    I recall when i first addressed you on this blog, you stated something about wanting to engage in intelligent discourse with liberals....
    But what i find is that when you can't control the argument, you resort to the tool of last resort of losers everywhere and engage in an attack the messenger mode instead of addressing the question posed, and then spice it up with some name calling.  Good thing for you that this isn't a face to face argument.....because i'd cut short the name calling part of this, my friend.
  • Michael
    before the repeal of Glass-Steagall, your mortgage was between two entities, you and your bank." -James L-
    You don't like the author?

    No, who is the author?  I can cut and paste my own words and put it here and say look! proof.  I have laid out my position, and I have made my background known.  The fact you don't understand the concept of credible sourcing is one of the reasons you are so easily persuaded. 

    wanting to engage in intelligent discourse with liberals....
    True, yet all I get is someone who wants to cite the equivalent of ASK Jeeves.  Intelligent was the operative word in that statement and you sir have not provided that by your intellectual dishonesty that I have pointed out again and again from your truncating of speeches, referring to only parts of paragraphs when the next sentence (that you skip) negates your own argument, and the accusation of racial bias when the only one who has ever brought up race is you.

    Good thing for you that this isn't a face to face argument.....because i'd cut short the name calling part of this, my friend.

    Well then, could the backwoods, uneducated, ditch digger, racist please answer my question and give me any statistical information on the race of the GSE loans that you want to attribute to one skin color over another?  Or can you not find it, in which case you are making an assumption based solely on your preconceived notions of race.  That may be ok in you rural, backwoods community, but the rest of the world does not share in your racist views.  So numbers please.
  • Michael
    "i really don't have the reasons for this but maybe liberals use a different dictionary than the rest of us?"

    Titus,
    Someone out there once said that Liberalism is a mental disorder.  Now that sounds harsh but lets look at the definitional meaning and see if some of the arguments made by Dora and David fit the mold.



    A mental disorder may be defined as a significant impairment of an individual's cognitive, affective and/or relational abilities which may require intervention and may be a recognised, medically diagnosable illness or disorder.


    Cognitive may be defined as the part of mental functions that deals with logic and reasoning, as opposed to affective which deals with emotions


    Reason is a way of thinking characterized by logic, analysis, and synthesis. It is often contrasted with emotionalism, which is thinking driven by desire, passion, or prejudice

    So what do David and Doras post reflect?  Are they logical, well reasoned lines of thinking or are they simply emotionally charged, passion driven, prejudiced laced remarks?  I have said on here time and time again that these two need to seek counseling as the hate that is bottled up inside of them is percolating to the top and these post are nothing more than a cry for help.

    Read their post for yourselves.  They can not go back now and change or alter in anyway any of the racism or bigotry that has brought me to the conclusion that perhaps it is indeed a mental disorder that we are dealing with.
  • JackieM
    Michael--hmmm!  you've given me feed for thought!  thanks!  that may be why we can't have healthy debates with some people.
  • davidwwalters72
    before the repeal of Glass-Steagall, your mortgage was between two entities, you and your bank." -James L-
    You don't like the author? -Me <<No, who is the author?  I can cut and paste my own words and put it here and say look! proof.  I have laid out my position, and I have made my background known.  The fact you don't understand the concept of credible sourcing is one of the reasons you are so easily persuaded.>>-Michael(144)
    Ac
    tu
    ally, Michael, this is simply a statement.  Is it correct?  Does one have to be an "expert"(...such as you) to point this out and if it isn't true, Michael....you could always refute the statement.   But you choose to have our attention drawn away from the statement by attacking the source (who knows, who cares who he is......but IS WHAT HE SAYS A FACT OR NOT?                                                                                                       And the larger question that this is a part of:                             -"What role did Deregulation play in our economic meltdown?"

    <<I have laid out my position, and I have made my background known......>> -Yes, we are aware that you are an "expert"  By your reasoning only experts have the right to make observations or state facts.  You constantly use this ploy to tap dance around addressing the realities of our market crisis, attempting to impress us with technical jargon and the boring minutia of what most of us find to be a boring subject.....If it hadn't impacted us so negatively.                                    Laid out your position?  Other than telling us what an "expert" you are, you haven't addressed the impact  DEREGULATION has had on  the Banking, Investment, and Insurance industries.....Yeah Michael....this must be "my cry for help", huh?
    SteveS(129) ask:<<Please explain to me how these derivatives made any of us looseour homes, and that is the problem right now, people not making their payments.>>                                                   -Steve, glad you and your wife aren't feeling guilty for being sold a crappy loan.....                                                                                 Deregulation of Banking, Investments, and Underwriting allowed derivatives to proliferate.  Check out the growth in derivatives from 2000-2008 if you doubt me.   Derivatives were a method where your loan (and the risk that went along with it) could be bundled up with a bunch of other loans and converted into bonds and traded on the market.....which increased the money that could be made off the loan you and others made.  The money being made off fees from originating the loan and the profits made from the sale of the derivative made this a popular method of making money from nothing.  Loans were made attractive and easy for you, and the bank didn't really care if you paid or not...... they were selling your loan anyway.  But why ask me when you can ask the "expert"     -Michael i'm sure he knows!
  • davidwwalters72
    JackieM.....What's unhealthy about this debate?
  • davidwwalters72
    Michael
    When you have nothing, the only thing a loser can do is begin to descend to name calling....
    <<Someone out there once said that Liberalism is a mental disorder.  Now that sounds harsh but lets look at the definitional meaning and see if some of the arguments made by Dora and David fit the mold.
    A mental disorder may be defined as a significant impairment of an individual's cognitive, affective and/or relational abilities which may require intervention and may be a recognized, medically diagnosable illness or disorder.>>-(145)
    -So all you can do is try to claim i' crazy?  Wow!  I may be, but then doesn't that make you look even MORE foolish when a rube and a nut can turn the arguments of a so-called expert on their head every time?
  • SeanS
    David,
    any numbers yet about how many black folk vs white folk recieved those mortgages from Fannie?  He is right that you threw out a claim of racism and you run away as fast as you can when you have to back it up.  Like I said to you on the other post, you don't even realize how foolish you look David, but everyone else sure does.
  • JackieM
    David--when the facts are in front of you, you can't see them.  that is why.
  • davidwwalters72
    SeanS(150)....
    <<
    He is right that you threw out a claim of racism and you run away as fast as you can when you have to back it up.>>
    -if
    we're not getting Michael to explain how Fannie&Freddie loans are the root cause of our current economic crisis and not the repeal of Glass-Steagal, well then we must be off subject, and not addressing the real problem before us...."What is the root cause of the current economic crisis?"
    But to answer again, Michael's claim that by pointing out racist ideas,
    -that makes one a racist.....
    i'll go over it one more time just for you SeanS.....

    -T
    he perception
    harbored by many is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,was in some way responsible for our current economic crisis.  The Community Reinvestment Act, along  with Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992
    is pointed to as the mechanism of that somehow forced banks to make loans to minorities.....so therefore, to some, these minorities are responsible for our current economic meltdown.  If this doesn't apply to you, read on anyway.
    <<Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”>>
    http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/...
    -Yes, your premise SeanS is true.....Minorities DON'T make up a majority of subprimes, yet to many the perception remains......"Minorities are getting loans they don't deserve......"
    Read the last line of the quoted material fro Business Week:
    "......It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat"
    -Wh
    at it appears Gov. Gramlich is saying is that, NO....Deregulation is the problem here!
    -But there remains those whisper campaigns that Michael must have learned from the Lee Atwater play book of subtile lying techniques.  Remember him.....the author of the infamous "Willie Horton" Ad? 
    <<you don't even realize how foolish you look David, but everyone else sure does.>>
    -F
    oo
    lish?  Explain to me SeanS how forncing Michael to explain how Fannie&Freddie being responsible for market meltdown is foolish?  Let me ask you this.....do you believe Fannie&Freddie are to blame here?  If you do, does that make ME racist?
  • Michael
    ...Minorities DON'T make up a majority of subprimes, yet to many the perception remains......"Minorities are getting loans they don't deserve......"David W Walters

    Hey David, who's quote is this "Minorities are getting loans they don't deserve......" Its not in the story you cited, it is not by anyone on this thread, is this David W Walters quote?  Can you please cite for me anywhere in the Business Week article this "quote" appears please.

    And true, they do not make up a majority of subprimes and even if they did, the data does not exist in that it is illegal to collect profiling data that includes race.  I have pointed out time and time again that interest rate resets caused the first wave of defaults and have argued that indeed there are CRA requirements on Banks to make loans as identified in the 95 regulatory change.

    The only racism seems to be coming from David W Walters who now admits that "...Minorities DON'T make up a majority of subprimes, yet to many the perception remains......"Minorities are getting loans they don't deserve......does that make ME racist?" YES!!!!and considering that is David W Walters words, not quoted from someone else, his perception does run contrary to reality and he believes "minorities are getting loans they don't deserve" 

    David, this explains why you want to appologize away people like Robert Byrd.  You need to check your racism at the door before you go public on websites like this.  That type of racism may be ok in Fayettville, North Carolina, but not here.
  • Michael
    New York Times
    Published: September 30, 2023
    In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
    The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
    Fannie Mae, which purchases mortgages and packages the loans in pools for sale to investors, announced that $21 billion in mortgage financing would be made available through these, as well as existing community revitalization and development programs in the New York area over the next five years.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    New York Times
    Published: October 24, 2022
     
    POSTINGS: A $21-Billion Mortgage Initiative; Fannie Mae Eases Loans
    Mortgage programs aimed at making home ownership more accessible for recently arrived immigrants, low-income families and people with poor credit histories in New York City, Nassau, Suffolk and Rockland Counties were announced last week by Fannie Mae, the nation's largest purchaser of mortgages from banks and other home-mortgage originators.
    In one of the programs, aimed particularly at immigrants, Fannie Mae plans to purchase $50 million in loans that have been granted on properties that include co-ops and two-family homes. When their credit worthiness is being assessed, applicants seeking the mortgages under this program will be allowed greater flexibility in counting part-time or multiple-job income, and greater use of income from relatives who live with the home buyers.
    A new program for people with poor credit histories, to be made available by the end of the year, will offer mortgage rates as much as 2 percentage points lower than typically charged such borrowers.
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    New York Times
    Published: September 11, 2023
    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    SteveS(129) ask:<<Please explain to me how these derivatives made any of us looseour homes, and that is the problem right now, people not making their payments.>>    

    As you can see from David's answer to you, it did not have anything to do with a single foreclosure, including yours.   As a matter of a fact, it is the foreclosures themselves that have an impact on the MBSecurities market, not the other way around.   And your loan, although an ARM was not necessarily a subprime mortgage.  ARMS defaulted, Interest Onlys defaulted, Balloon mortgages defaulted and on and on because of a drop in house value and an interest rate reset. 

    His cause and affect are backwards but he has a political party to defend so please excuse him.
  • JackieM
    Comment--"We know that small businesses are the engine of growth in the economy, and we absolutely want to do things to help them," Romer said Sunday morning, speaking broadly on the outline of the plan. "There are already a lot of things to help them in the recovery package, and some of what will be coming out are the things that were in the recovery package: increasing the SBA loan guarantees, lowering fees." The move comes as Republicans have sought to build on some bipartisan misgivings over Obama's ambitious spending blueprint. In particular, Republicans say Obama's budget proposal to raise taxes, starting in 2011, on individuals earning more than $200,000 and on households earning more than $250,000 will hurt small businesses, which face higher dividend taxes and limits on itemized deductions.

    Duh!  The republicans are right and apparently understand basic business!  helping small businesses get loans is a good thing.  however, what in the hell do they think is going to happen as a result of these companies knowing their taxes are going up?  has anyone ever heard of business plans?  these go out about five years or so.  therefore, companies plan now for their taxes increasing.  this means jobs will be cut now to prepare for the inevitable.  these people obviously think business owners are dumb or they have never run a business themselves.  hmmm!  oh, i'm sorry i forgot for about a split second we are talking about obama.  we understand he has no experience in running a business.  hmmm!  i guess that is why we are seeing this garbage come out of the Whitehouse!  well, this is what we get as a result of the "dumbing down of America syndrome."  those are the folks who voted for obama!  i would love to sit down with obama and have a debate.  it wouldn't take me long to drag the truth out of him for all of America to see.  please!  it would be like giving my son food for information.  it would take me just a few minutes to expose this jerk for what he is--clueless!
  • davidwwalters72
    Michael, in (142) you stated...
    <<
    "by dropping the Freddie&Fannie bomb the way you do IS calculated to inspire a racial tone to the many people who ARE racist"-(Me)
    Would you care to site a statistical number of how many of these loans were made to blacks or any other color for that matter? This only seems to "inspire" racism in you and I would like to know why.>>-(Michael)
    -H
    ere
    you seem to be inferring that  Freddie&Fannie's portion of the loan market is negligible.

    Then in (154), you cite the NY Times:
    "Fannie Mae Eases Loans
    Mortgage programs aimed at making home ownership more accessible for recently arrived immigrants, low-income families and people with poor credit histories".....

    Now it IS minorities who are to blame....."by dropping the Freddie&Fannie bomb the way you do IS calculated to inspire a racial tone to the many people who ARE racist"

    -Again....you are on record BLAMING "recently arrived immigrants, low-income families and people with poor credit histories" for our economic demise. Michael, if the shoe fits.....

    <<
    The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”>>
    http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/...

    "
    A former U.S. Treasury Department official, Michael Barr is an expert on domestic and international financial regulation and conducts empirical research on how poor households use financial services."
    http://www.brookings.edu/experts/barrm.aspx

    -Y
    ou like "EXPERTS" so much, so i cite one (of many) who understand that the root of our economic crisis is primarily due to our lax regulations stemming from Phil Gramm's deregulation of the industry by the his Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and his
    Commodity Futures Modernization Act

    <<Hey David, who's quote is this "Minorities are getting loans they don't deserve......" Its not in the story you cited, it is not by anyone on this thread, is this David W Walters quote?  Can you please cite for me anywhere in the Business Week article this "quote" appears please.>>-Michael(153)

    <<yet to many the perception remains......"Minorities are getting loans they don't deserve......">>-davidwwalters72(152)
    What an asshole!.....get the entire quote straight,".....THE PERCEPTION REMAINS"
    .....NOT my perception, but among the subset of racist voters who the republicans are trying to capture into their dubious fold.
    Again, your arguments are so weak that you have to stoop to this level.
  • davidwwalters72
    SeanS....Who is "wiping the floor" with whom?  Your master, Michael, is having a poor showing.
  • Michael
    David,
    You need a lesson or two on reading comprehension
    --Would you care to site a statistical number of how many of these loans were made to blacks or any other color for that matter? This only seems to "inspire" racism in you and I would like to know why.  The data does not exist in that it is illegal to collect profiling data that includes race."Michael
    --"Here you seem to be inferring that  Freddie&Fannie's portion of the loan market is negligible."David

    The Freddie/Fannie portion of the loan market is very substantial and the subprime market, although percentage wise small relative to prime was more than enough considering the internal default and forclosure rate to help in the further collapse of the housing market along with the resets and lowering house values.

    You are the one who is attributing "people of color" as the culprit here but if you look at the article, it was a program targeted to minorities by way of "easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders." ...encourag[ing] those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. When a loan app is taken, there is no check mark if you are black or white.  This was extended to everyone who met the new, lower income and credit requirments regardless of color. 

    This is what saw an explosion of subprimes in the market.  Those same loans that I have told you over and over had a 6.5 time default rate higher than prime and a 10 time forclosure rate over prime. 

    While these loans do target " low-income families and people with poor credit histories" they are unable to "select" based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex or familial status.  Although this is clearly stated under the Fair Housing Act, some, as apparently with David, the "perception remains......Minorities are getting loans they don't deserve......"

    No one on here other than David has ever brought race into this equation by intentionally race baiting.  Other people in the backwoods of North Carolina may cower by your attempts to turn your racism on them, I do not however as I have truth and fact on my side.  This is part of the diminished congnitive ability you suffer from and choose to argue on emotion vs logic and fact.
  • Michael
    "Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly."

    Disingenuous
    by David, dishonest by anyone who has any knowledge of the matter.

    not a single mention of any of these, almost as if they don't want to admit any changes have ever been made, so disingenuous or dishonest?


    Legislative changes 1989
    Legislative changes 1992
    Legislative changes 1994
    Regulatory changes 1995
    Legislative changes 1999
    Regulatory changes 2005
  • davidwwalters72
    Michael(158)
    <<
    The Freddie/Fannie portion of the loan market is very substantial and the subprime market, although percentage wise small relative to prime was more than enough considering the internal default and (foreclosure) rate to help in the further collapse of the housing market along with the resets and lowering house values.>>-Michael (italics mine)
    uh, What portion?  What percentage? 
    -Actually
    , quite a vague statement.

    <<While these loans do target " low-income families and people with poor credit histories" they are unable to "select" based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex or familial status.  Although this is clearly stated under the Fair Housing Act, some, as apparently with David,

    [-
    now this is where Michael is Disingenuous and dishonest , anyone who has any knowledge of the matter, and has read post #(152), will know]
    the  "perception remains......Minorities are getting loans they don't deserve......">>
    Do
    you really
    believe I think minorities are getting loans they do not deserve?
    -Again, since Michael has stooped to name calling long ago, i have every right to refer to him as an asshole, since what he infers is not only incorrect, but calculated to mislead, and if he said this kind of crap in my face, i'd have knocked his ass out for being a fucking liar......

    <<-Yes, your premise SeanS is true.....Minorities DON'T make up a majority of subprimes, yet to many the perception remains......"Minorities are getting loans they don't deserve......">>

    -IS THE CONTEXT OF WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID,
    AS opposed to what Michael infers....

    <<
    No one on here other than David has ever brought race into this equation by intentionally race baiting.  Other people in the backwoods of North Carolina may cower by your attempts to turn your racism on them, I do not however as I have truth and fact on my side.  This is part of the diminished congnitive ability you suffer from and choose to argue on emotion vs logic and fact. >>-Michael

    .....and to quote my favorite Dickhead...."there you go again..."
    -Y
    our argument is weak, is this all you have?
    "Intentionally race bating"?  If you desire to blame minorities by inference for the state of our economy, then you ARE racist.  This is what i mean by COVERT RACISM.

    So, let's get one thing straight, buddy.....as hard as you are attempting to keep throwing shit on the wall, hoping some of it will stick.....you continue to fail. 
    The "Legislative Changes" to The Community Reinvestment Act you cited above........
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvest...
    [-Note, this is Michael's link!]
    -Fails to note one important fact.....
    "Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvest...

    -Furthermore,
    "Athough the current problems appear to be rooted in high-risk subprime lending, I would like to dispel the notion that these problems were caused in any way by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) lending. The CRA is designed to promote lending in low- to moderate-income areas; it is not designed to encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting."-Elizabeth A Duke, member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of the United States
    http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech...

    The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, by deregulating the Banking, Investment, and Underwriting industries IS the root cause of the economic crisis we face.
    -You have yet to address this. 
    You should have read futher, Michael.  Maybe Phil Gramm, and SeanS, agree with your "EXPERT ASSESSMENT", but not many others....now go crawl in your hole.
  • Michael
    "uh, What portion?  What percentage? 
    -Actually, quite a vague statement."David
    And that is a vague question.  What percentage of total loans are guaranteed by Fannie, Freddie, or total number of subprimes relative to primes, or defaults/forclosure of subprimes relative to primes?  What's your question, and better yet, whats your point?
    ".Minorities are getting loans they don't deserve......"David
    Then what was the purpose of statements like this by you David?  Was it to insinuate that this is a RACE ISSUE?  You are the only one who wants to link this problem to a black vs white problem.  This is typical liberalism and running to pull a race card that only they want to play. "yet to many the perception remains......Minorities are getting loans they don't deserve......" Out of the "many", you seem to be the only "one." This is what I meant by Overt Racism, consciously wanting to link a particular race as a victim of or a direct cause of a particular event.  You, David W Walters continue to bring race into a subprime discussion that saw ALL people of ALL colors be affected by. David is a typical rural southern, white, democrat racist.

    "it is not designed to encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting."
    So Elizabeth A Duke believes that by Fannie Mae Corporation easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders... encourag[ing] those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans that this didn't "encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting." ?

    And by "allow[ing] greater flexibility in counting part-time or multiple-job income, and greater use of income from relatives who live with the home buyers.  A new program for people with poor credit histories, to be made available by the end of the year " didn't "encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting."?

    To be either so blind or so dumb or perhaps just with your head shoved so far down the political hole you can't see anything is scary.  It is this type of political blindness that David presents here everyday that will see these same "failed" policies enacted again and again.  I sure hope ACORN is paying you well to look so bad.
  • Michael
    The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, by deregulating the Banking, Investment, and Underwriting industries IS the root cause of the economic crisis we face.-You have yet to address this. David
    You need to spend some time and go back and read this thread then.  How many times do I have to repeat that a loan must be made first (lets just call that the "root")  before it is packaged, guaranteed and sold into the secondary.  If the root is bad, the whole tree withers, if enough roots are bad, the whole tree dies.  But the loan is the ROOT of the problem and the loans that are defaulting at the highest rates and foreclosing at the highest rates are having an effect on the entire economic tree.  So yes David, it all goes back to the ROOT of the problem, the loan.

    This is why you can not tell anyone, including a person who lost there home, how the GLB caused a single foreclosure, or a single missed payment.  WHY DON'T YOU ADDRESS THAT.

    I will stick around as long as you do David and continue to explain, re-explain, and explain again to all of those out there who want to know the reasons behind these problems outside of myopic political ideology that you continue to put on here day in and day out.

  • davidwwalters72
    Michael(162)....
    -K
    eep Try'in! <<You need to spend some time and go back and read this thread then.  How many times do I have to repeat that a loan must be made first (lets just call that the "root")  before it is packaged, guaranteed and sold into the secondary.>>

    uh, in (160)....-I
    said:

    [-Furthermore,
    "Although the current problems appear to be rooted in high-risk subprime lending, I would like to dispel the notion that these problems were caused in any way by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) lending. The CRA is designed to promote lending in low- to moderate-income areas; it is not designed to encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting."           -Elizabeth A Duke, member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of the United States]
    http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech...>

    "The CRA ......is not designed to encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting
    -W
    ho
    encouraged "high-risk lending"?  It wasn't a gun to the investment bankers head, now was it?  It was greed motivated by ungodly profit stemming from the relaxation of rule brought about by....you guessed it!
    The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act

    -L
    ike
    i said.....you seem intent on trying to get some shit to stick to the wall......keep throwing!

    <<
    This is why you can not tell anyone, including a person who lost there home, how the GLB caused a single foreclosure, or a single missed payment.  WHY DON'T YOU ADDRESS THAT.>>
    -I HAVE.....and here is some more!

    -
    The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, by deregulating the industry and breaking down the firewalls instituted by The Glass-Steagal Act, has allowed a HUGE increase in the NUMBER of loans made between 200-2008. How?
    http://www.thislife.org/extras/radio/355_transc...
    -Read pages 5&6....
    "Mike Francis: My name is Mike Francis. During the beginning of the mortgage
    implosion, I was an executive director at Morgan Stanley on the residential
    mortgage trading desk.
    And here are these homeowners, they're paying 5, 7, 9 percent to borrow money
    from some bank. So what if the global pool could get in on that action?

    page 6
    There are problems. Individual mortgages are too big a hassle for the global pool of
    money. They don't wanna get mixed up with actual people and their catastrophic
    health problems or debilitating divorces, and all the reasons which might stop them
    from paying their mortgages.
    So what Mike and his peers on Wall Street did, was to figure out how to give the
    global pool of money all the benefits of a mortgage – basically higher yield - without
    the hassle or the risk.

    So picture the whole chain. You have Clarence. He gets a mortgage from a broker.
    The broker sells the mortgage to a small bank, the small bank sells the mortgage to
    a guy like Mike at a big investment firm on Wall Street.
    Then Mike takes a few thousand mortgages he’s bought this way, he puts them in
    one big pile. Now he’s got thousands of mortgage checks coming to him every
    month. It’s a huge monthly stream of money, which is expected to come in for the
    next thirty years, the life of a mortgage.
    And he then sells shares of that monthly income to investors. Those shares are
    called mortgage backed securities. And the 70 trillion dollar global pool of money
    loved them.

    Mike Francis: it was unbelievable. We almost couldn’t produce enough to
    keep the appetite of the investors happy. More people wanted bonds than we
    could actually produce. That was our difficult task, was trying to produce
    enough. They would call and ask “Do you have any more fixed rate? What
    have you got? What’s coming?” From our standpoint it's like, there's a guy
    out there with a lot of money. We gotta find a way to be his sole provider of
    bonds to fill his appetite. And his appetite’s massive."

    Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act deregulated  the Credit Default Swaps that have been at "the heart of the subprime meltdown,"-(Michael Greenberger,used to run the Trading division of the CFTC)

    These  says Greenberger. "I happen to think Gramm did not know what he was doing. I don't think a member in Congress had read the 262-page bill or had thought of the cataclysm it would cause." In 1998, Greenberger's division at the cftc proposed applying regulations to the burgeoning derivatives market. But, he says, "all hell broke loose. The lobbyists for major commercial banks and investment banks and hedge funds went wild. They all wanted to be trading without the government looking over their shoulder."
    <<myopic political ideology that you continue to put on here day in and day out.>>??
    -Really?, again, only you, Sean S. and Phil Gramm seem to think this economic meltdown wasn't incurred by deregulation.  And again, the granddaddy of deregulation is......
    Phil Gramm!
  • davidwwalters72
    <<I will stick around as long as you do David and continue to explain, re-explain, and explain again to all of those out there who want to know the reasons behind these problems outside of myopic political ideology that you continue to put on here day in and day out.>>-Michael
    -K
    eep
    on looking foolish Michael.  You, the expert.....being trashed by a hick from North Carolina!  Don't y'love it?
  • davidwwalters72
    Remember folks....Treasury bonds were selling at what, 1%?
    All these guys from China, India, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia were looking for a good return.....the Credit Default Swaps could return these guys 7, 8,11%. 
    Question:  Why were T-Bonds so low?

    "They(All these guys from China, India, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia) all wanted the same thing: a nice low  risk investment that paid some return.   But then something happened to make matters worse, at this precise moment, one  guy took one of that army's favorite investments and made it a lot less attractive......
    Adam Davidson: Here is one of his speeches that really drove that army of
    investment managers crazy.   Alan Greenspan: "The FOMC stands prepared to maintain a highly accommodative stance of policy for as long as needed to promote satisfactory economic performance."

    Adam Davidson: You might not believe me, but that little statement: that is Central Banker speak for “Hey, global pool of money - screw you.”

    Alex Blumberg: Come on, that’s not what he said

    Adam Davidson: It is! I speak central banker and that’s what he’s saying.
    What he’s technically saying is he’s going to keep the Fed Funds rate at the absurdly low level of one percent. It tells every investor in the world: you are not going to make any money at all on US treasury bonds for a very long time. Go somewhere else. We can’t help you.
    And so the global pool of money looked around for some low-risk, high-return investment. And among the many things they put their money into, there was one thing they fell in love with......"
    -page 4&5 This American Life Episode Transcript
    Program #355
    The Giant Pool of Money
    http://www.thislife.org/extras/radio/355_transc...
  • Michael
    David Walters said[CRA]it is not designed to encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting."         

    And the New York Times said;
    "Fannie Mae Corporation easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders... encourag[ing] those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans "
    "allow[ing] greater flexibility in counting part-time or multiple-job income, and greater use of income from relatives who live with the home buyers.  A new program for people with poor credit histories, to be made available by the end of the year "
    Who encouraged "high-risk lending"?  It wasn't a gun to the investment bankers head, now was it? David

    If you want to call the failure of a lending institution to meet the Community Reinvestment Act Requirements that would not allow a bank to do a merger/aquisition or open new branches a "gun to there head", then yes, the 1995 Regulatory Change to the Community Reinvestment Act did indeed "encourage" high-risk lending.  As I have stated on here before, time and time again, that this regulatory change sought to ensure that these loans were made, not just made available.
    Read carefully David, I will only repost this a hundred more times...
    Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae, took the opportunity of his speech before the 125th ABA Annual Convention to introduce a new initiative designed to help banks, as well as Fannie Mae itself, meet their Community Reinvestment Act requirements.
    <!-- google_ad_section_end (name=s1) --> <!--innerMod--> <!-- google_ad_section_start (name=s2 weight=.3) -->
    "HUD [the Department of Housing and Urban Development] will soon require us to dedicate 50% of our business to low- and moderate-income families," said Raines. He noted that since 1997 Fannie Mae has done nearly $7 billion in specially targeted CRA business with depository institutions, but its goal is to push this to $20 billion ...
  • Michael
    David,
    You just look like an idiot when all you do is post a conversation of one persons perspective of the innerworkings of the securities market, that when you read it, says absolutely nothing about how it caused the missed payment of even a single mortgage holder.  Is this what you are holding out as "proof" now days?   Do you even read this stuff before you submit it?

  • davidwwalters72
    <<David Walters said[CRA]it is not designed to encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting.">>-Michael(166).....

    -N
    o!
    David Walters did not say this.... Again, this is calculated to mislead(....therefore you are a liar!).....                           -Elizabeth A Duke, member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of the United States,-WROTE THAT!
    (.....i copy'd&pasted).  I guess what you are attempting to do is to attribute meaningful quotes to me personally, so as to diminish that quote's importance......

    So you impugn me personally and simply dismiss the words of experts(attributing those quotes to me personally, and therefore, you hope, to diminish that quote's thrust)....."Hey man, nice shot.....nice shot man!"-Filter
    -And name calling, the last resort of losers......
    (....unless of course i were called names, then i can retort in kind!  Just ask JackieM,  we don't agree on much, but there is a level of civility)....But i'll keep the name calling to a minimum. 
    I was inclined to call you an idiot, but what i see is a desperate attempt to sooth your damaged ego by attacking the N.C. Hick so vehemently.   I guess it IS irritating to have such a rube stand your arguments on their heads.   No, stupid you're not.  But like any one engaged in damage control, you are just a bit wigged out.  Perhaps on some, your disinformation campaign works    (SeanS comes to mind, Oh!  Dick Cheney agrees with you, Michael!......)

    As i have often reported, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are a symptom, not a cause of our current economic crisis. There IS a vehicle, that facilitated the making of bad loans(Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac included.....but Fannie&Freddie do not even come close to all the bad loans made.....)

    Michael would like to mislead the ill informed.....(and lemme not insult anyone here, this is a very boring subject, and i believe Michael is banking on that fact so we will be LESS inclined to read about it our own selves.  Instead he'd like us to simply take his word for it....)
    So i will break it down for you.
  • Michael
    -No! David Walters did not say this.... Again, this is calculated to mislead
    -in (160)....-I said:
    [-Furthermore,
    "Although the current problems appear to be rooted in high-risk subprime lending, I would like to dispel the notion that these problems were caused in any.....DavidWWalters

    Do you think before you write?  Reread post 161 and see if I was trying to
    A. attribute the quote to you
    B. attribute the argument to you 

    "As i have often reported, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are a symptom, not a cause of our current economic crisis. There IS a vehicle, that facilitated the making of bad loans(Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac included.....but Fannie&Freddie do not even come close to all the bad loans made.....)"DavidWWalters
    This is a breakthrough!
    1. Can you point back to a post where as you said that Freddie and Fannie were symptomatic to the economic problem and why.

    2. Can you point back to a post where as you said that outside of subprime loans, what other types of "bad loans" were problematic?

    go ahead, break it down for me and if  you could include the post numbers that would be helpful.  David, it is good to see that you are no longer attempting to "dismiss the words of experts"
  • davidwwalters72
    Michael in (167) stated...
    <<
    You just look like an idiot when all you do is post a conversation of one persons perspective of the inner workings of the securities market, that when you read it, says absolutely nothing about how it caused the missed payment of even a single mortgage holder.>>
    -I
    apologize Michael.  I should have done a better job.  Shame on ME!
    (T
    his IS Fun!)

    http://www.thislife.org/extras/radio/355_transc...
    This American Life Episode Transcript
    Program #355
    The Giant Pool of Money,
    by Ira Glass

    "
    One person's perspective?"  -Really?  Didn't really read it, huh Michael? This Program#355 is on a podcast on NPR.
    .....but there is a Cast of Characters(....not just "one persons perspective",as you put it)
    -In Ira Glass's program....OK....i know NPR is communist, but screw Ira(COMMIE THAT HE IS), his  characters make sense and they aren't exactly communists.

    -S
    t
    art with Clarence Nathan, a guy with a loan from a bank.  Clarence Nathan....a guy with a NINA loan, NINA stands for No Income, No Asset.
    Why has Clarence Nathan's loan became such a hot commodity.....NOT because of a mean ol' government bureaucrat, but because of institutional greed.  Mr. Nathan's loan was hot ONLY because it COULD be sold (....and converted into a bond)
    Remember, banks DON"T make loans to lose money....

    -A
    lex Blumberg:"
    This imprudent partnership is new, and is at the heart the current
    housing crisis. For most of the history of banking, bankers wouldn’t have loaned
    Clarence their money either.
    They didn’t let people like Clarence near their money, in
    fact, people with part-time employment, and unpaid debts in their past. And then,
    suddenly, in the early 2000’s, everything changed,
    banking turned on its head and
    went out looking for partnerships with people like Clarence...loaning him half a
    million dollars without even checking to see if he had a job. What happened?"
    -Th
    ere HAS to be a method of making a profit.....That profit motive was provided by SELLING Nathan's loan.  How could they do this?  DEREGULATION. Prior to Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Phil Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act, this would not have been profitable.....The clue here is "....in the early 2000’s, everything changed."  It changed due to Deregulation of the Banking, Investment, and Underwriting industires.....Michael, you're the EXPERT.  Yet, NOT once have i ever read you address this issue: -What exactly Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Phil Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act did for your industry!

    -So, enter the next character....Ceyla Pazarbasioglu....the head of capital market research at the International  Monetary Fund. (Surely a commie, huh?)  Adam Davidson, the international business reporter for NPR picks up the interview with Mr
    Pazarbasioglu.  He sets the stage with a discussion of the "The Global Pool of Money."("....All the world’s savings......")
    Ceyla Pazarbasioglu: "It's a lot of money. It's about 70 trillion.....This number doubled since 2000. In 2000 this was about 36 trillion dollars."
    Adam Davidson: "How's the world get twice as much money to invest? Lots of
    things happened, but the main headline is all sorts of poor countries became kind of
    rich making TVs and selling us oil: China, India, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia. Made a lot
    of money and banked it."
    NOW KEEP PAYING ATTENTION.....
    Adam Davidson:"China, for example, has over a trillion dollars in its central
    bank, and there are office buildings in Beijing filled with math geniuses-real math
    geniuses-looking for a place to invest it. And the world was not ready for all this
    money. There's twice as much money looking for investments, but there are not
    twice as many good investments.
    So, that global army of investment managers was
    hungrier and twitchier than ever before. They all wanted the same thing: a nice low5
    risk investment that paid some return."
    Enter: Alan Greenspan.
    Adam Davidson:
    "Here is one of his speeches that really drove that army of
    investment managers crazy.
    Alan Greenspan: The FOMC stands prepared to maintain a highly
    accommodative stance of policy for as long as needed to promote satisfactory
    economic performance.
    Adam Davidson: You might not believe me, but that little statement: that is Central
    Banker speak for “Hey, global pool of money - screw you.” "

    OK Kids!
    You have a situation now where there is a lot of money needing to be invested.  And the Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan puts the rate of return on Treasury Bonds at about 1%.  Not a good investment(even this dumb Hick from North Carolina knows that!)
    -So what you gonna do?

    -Enter Mike Francis....executive director at Morgan Stanley on the residential
    mortgage trading desk.(Yeah right... just one persons perspective, huh Michael?)
    Adam Davidson:"-What Mike and his peers on Wall Street did, was to figure out how to give the global pool of money all the benefits of a mortgagebasically higher yield - without the hassle or the risk."

    Shall i continue Michael?
    Read it for yourself, or listen to the podcast kids!
  • davidwwalters72
    <<-No! David Walters did not say this.... Again, this is calculated to mislead

    -in (160)....-I said:
    [-Furthermore,
    "Although the current problems appear to be rooted in high-risk subprime lending, I would like to dispel the notion that these problems were caused in any.....DavidWWalters

    Do you think before you write?  Reread post 161 and see if I was trying to
    A. attribute the quote to you
    B. attribute the argument to you >>
    -Michael(169)....



    Michael,
    .......................... I'm Referring to what you posted in (166)
    <<
    David Walters said[CRA]it is not designed to encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting.">>
    -Uh, yes.  Actually you seem to be attributing that quote to me.

    "
    -No! David Walters did not say this.... Again, this is calculated to mislead
    -in (160)....-I said:Again, this is calculated to mislead(....therefore you are a liar!).....                           -Elizabeth A Duke, member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of the United States,-WROTE THAT!"-ME

    Are you sure you're not a used car salesman?  This is a classic b
    "bate&switch" technique.


  • Michael
    ""One person's perspective?"  -Really?  Didn't really read it, huh Michael? This Program#355 is on a podcast on NPR.
    .....but there is a Cast of Characters"DavidWWalters

    David, you aren't that dumb, how many people are speaking telling their perspective on the story?  No doubt, they are talking about a whole "cast of characters" told by Adam Davidson and Alex Blumberg.  This is getting dumb David.

    .. I'm Referring to what you posted in (166)
    and I am refering to what you posted in 163 (well before 166) where DavidWWalters said ".-I said:
    [-Furthermore,
    "Although the current problems appear to be rooted in high-risk subprime lending, I would like to dispel the notion that these problems were caused in any....."

    First, when you say "I said", do you mean Elizabeth Duke?  Second, when I, Michael, say "So Elizabeth A Duke believes that by Fannie Mae Corporation easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase..." you take that to mean I am referring to you?  Reading comprehension David, practice it. So once again I ask you;
    Reread post 161 and see if I was trying to
    A. attribute the quote to you
    B. attribute the argument to you 
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Now back to the other, more important questions that you have not answered....


    "As i have often reported, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are a symptom, not a cause of our current economic crisis. There IS a vehicle, that facilitated the making of bad loans(Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac included.....but Fannie&Freddie do not even come close to all the bad loans made.....)"DavidWWalters
    This is a breakthrough!
    1. Can you point back to a post where as you said that Freddie and Fannie were symptomatic to the economic problem and why.
    2. Can you point back to a post where as you said that outside of subprime loans, what other types of "bad loans" were problematic?





  • davidwwalters72
    Michael (172) attacks experts(....y'know the kind he savors)
    <<David, you aren't that dumb, how many people are speaking telling their perspective on the story?  No doubt, they are talking about a whole "cast of characters" told by Adam Davidson and Alex Blumberg.  This is getting dumb David.>>
    -What is dumb is your inability to face the question.....
    -Why did the Credit default swap grow so large over the past 8 or 9 years?

    -Nice trick in (172) & (161).......
    <<
    Reread post 161 and see if I was trying to
    A. attribute the quote to you
    B. attribute the argument to you >>

    -However
    i AM referring to what you posted here.....
    Michael


    Monday, March 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
    166

    David Walters said[CRA]it is not designed to encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting." 
    -Yes, you seem to be "attribute the quote to (me)"

    -Again, are you actually a Used Car Salesman?
  • davidwwalters72
    (Bate & Switch.....)
  • Michael
    "-What is dumb is your inability to face the question....."
    1. Your ability to cite credible sources.
    2. The premise of your question to begin.  Your whole premise is wrong and this is why you are unable to face the question of how this led to a single foreclosure or even one missed payment on a loan.  Your entire premise is flawed and this is what makes this continuation "dumb" is your lack of understanding of even the most basic element of the housing problem and this too is why people like yourself are simply doomed to repeat the same failed policies over and over again.

    "David Walters said[CRA]it is not designed to encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting."
    POST 161
    "So Elizabeth A Duke believes that by Fannie Mae Corporation easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase..."Michael

    Are you having an identity crisis?  I realize that your cognitive abilities are impaired but now you believe you are Elizabeth A Duke?  Is it my "baiting and switching" or is it your now believing you are this woman?  Reread, again post 161 and tell me I have not acknowledged Elizabeth A Duke.  Is this all you have left David?

    speaking of bait and switch David, could you please answer the simple question stated now for a third time
    "As i have often reported, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are a symptom, not a cause of our current economic crisis. There IS a vehicle, that facilitated the making of bad loans(Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac included.....but Fannie&Freddie do not even come close to all the bad loans made.....)"DavidWWalters
    1. Can you point back to a post where as you said that Freddie and Fannie were symptomatic to the economic problem and why.
    2. Can you point back to a post where as you said that outside of subprime loans, what other types of "bad loans" were problematic?
  • davidwwalters72
    <<"-What is dumb is your inability to face the question....."
    1. Your ability to cite credible sources.>>-Michael(175).....

    Mike Francis
    ....executive director at Morgan Stanley on the residential
    mortgage trading desk
    Ceyla Pazarbasioglu....the head of capital market research at the International  Monetary Fund.
    -Oh, you are sooooo right!   Neither of these guys are credible sources.
    Anyone involved in the crisis should not be cited, huh?

    <<
    Your whole premise is wrong and this is why you are unable to face the question of how this led to a single foreclosure or even one missed payment on a loan.>>
    -By creating a MARKET where any loan could be shown to make a profit for the eventual holder of that loan.......because of the way it was underwritten & re-bundled.
  • Michael
    So people are being forclosed on because of the way the loan was underwitten and re-bundled? 
    *First, which underwriting criteria would you say is at fault here.
    *Second, how does re-bundling affect the payment on that loan by the mortgagee? 
    *Third, can you point back to a post where as you said that Freddie and Fannie were symptomatic to the economic problem and why.
    *Finally, Can you point back to a post where as you said that outside of subprime loans, what other types of "bad loans" were problematic?
  • davidwwalters72
    -Michael, what i did in (163&170) was use an interview that contained players of all facets of the very complicated home loan business of the previous decade and the interconnections and motivations that led to loans being made by banks that they knew could not be paid.
    "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act deregulated  the Credit Default Swaps that have been at "the heart of the subprime meltdown,"-(Michael Greenberger,used to run the Trading division of the CFTC)"- i posted from
    This American Life Episode Transcript
    Program #355
    "The Giant Pool of Money"
    http://www.thislife.org/extras/radio/355_transc...
    in (160)....
    <<which underwriting criteria would you say is at fault here?>>-(177)
    Lack of REGULATION is "at fault here", Michael ..............................When the loans
    were transformed into OTHER financial instruments that could allow the guys with huge bundles of cash (y'know, like the title implied......"The Giant Pool of Money")
    -To invest in something with a far greater return than Treasury Bonds, if these financial instruments were supposedly insured (such as AIG did, yet they didn't have the money to cover potential losses)......
    -This practice led to lenders to make NINA loans (NINA stands for No Income, No Asset)......
    -And when the payments on the homes weren't made, the house of cards came down!
    Keep on the subject Michael ......don't do the "Bait&Switch" method of deflection from the point....
  • Michael
    This from Nobel Economist Gary Becker in an interview with the Wall St. Journal published 3/21/09
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759849467801485.html

    Mr. Becker sees the finger prints of big government all over today's economic woes. When I ask him about the sources of the mania in housing prices, the first culprit he names is the Fed. Low interest rates, he says, were "partly, maybe mainly, due to the Fed's policy of keeping [its] interest rates very low during 2002-2004." A second reason rates were low was the "high savings rates primarily from Asia and also from the rest of the world."
    "People debate the relative importance of the two and I don't think we know exactly," Mr. Becker admits. But what is clear is that "when you have low interest rates, any long-lived assets tend to go up in price because they are based upon returns accruing over many years. When interest rates are low you don't discount these returns very much and you get high asset prices."
    On top of that, Mr. Becker says, there were government policies aimed at "extending the scope of homeownership in the United States to low-credit, low-income families." This was done through "the Community Reinvestment Act in the '70s and then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac later on" and it put many unqualified borrowers into the mix.
    The third effect, Mr. Becker says, was the "bubble mentality." By this "I mean that much of the additional lending and borrowing was based on expectations that prices would continue to rise at rates we now recognize, and should have recognized then, were unsustainable."
  • davidwwalters72

    Gary Becker's
    selfish, "rotten" kid is incarnate in his disciple.......
    Michael
    -F
    rom
    the Rotten kid theorem by  Gary Becker
    "Becker creates a hypothetical situation in which children will receive gifts of money income from a wealthy, altruistic parent in order to make them happy. One of the kids is a selfish, "rotten" kid who would take pleasure in harming his sibling. The theorem posits that the rotten kid has an incentive to avoid hurting his sibling, and will in fact behave in such a way as to increase her happiness, because her happiness has a direct effect on the amount of money he will receive.  Without creating any formal incentive structure, the altruistic parent can induce the rotten child to behave benevolently by making his welfare contingent upon the welfare of his sibling."-from Wikiped

    -So I guess Alan Greenspan must have had this in mind when he
    said:  "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what every everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

    Trust an banker, investment broker?  Maybe you can most of the time......but when they do lie it sure costs a pretty penny.
  • Victor Rodriguez
    Wigging out? You put up a website and I said it needed work. I did not comment on the opinions are articles. We both have the right to have any site with any opinion. I was simply commenting as a web designer on how you could improve the layout.

    And when it comes to the constitution, why must you think I automatically support violations by the bush administration. In some cases I am probably harder on him than you are. He started two wars without a declaration, looked the other way as the fed printed trillions, and used the power of the executive in ways it never intended to be used. To me the Obama is simply the liberal shot at shredding what is left of the constitution after the right had a crack at it. Neither the right nor the left has a monopoly on supporting the constitution. It is all of our responsibilities. When the right was ignoring it, people like you put the bush administrations feet to the fire, and now it is our turn.
  • ML Smith
    The New Bart

    The American States, 2015.

    Journal entry, November 22, 2015.

    Johnson is the name. William Johnson. I work for the BART - Barter Exchange and Redemption Taxation. There is no Bay Area Rapid Transit anymore. There hasn't been much of anything since the crash of 2009. The states are no longer united, there is no President and no Federal Government. States are run by Governors who are now autonomous and make the laws, which are enforced by state militias that have the authority to kill lawbreakers on sight and arbitrarily detain people in government holding facilities. Thousands died in these detention centers when supplies of food and water stopped abruptly. Curfews vary from state to state, but in general, people must be off the streets and in their homes by 9:00 pm.
     
    After the economic collapse of 2009, the people learned that they had been defrauded - that money had been privatized for thirty years and existed only in the form of credit. They rebelled and martial law was imposed to stop the rioting and looting. The Pentagon disbanded and the military were re-assigned to the states by a committee of Governors appointed by the Justice Department, which subsequently disbanded when the states declared independence.
     
    These first seven years have been hell. Goods and services are virtually non-existent and Americans, in their rage against a system that had ruthlessly defrauded them, have been on a rampage with a singular purpose...hunt down and kill the billionaires that were still living the good life in their mansions, on their yachts and at their parties. The military intervened briefly, but then joined forces with the Avengers, as they were called. 300,000 Americans died in what could be categorized as a mini civil war in which the rich were pitted against common Americans. The last recorded death was Warren Buffet - hunted down on a lonely street in Beverly Hills.
    By order of the Governors, the material holdings captured were stockpiled in BART redemption centers throughout the states and these became the banks.
     
    Stores continue to operate, but money and credit has been replaced by barter. People come with their goods and trade for credits, or units of buying value. Some people barter services, so you can go to a store and earn buying credits by painting, or re-flooring, or any other skilled labor you can contribute. Store employees work for the same buying credits. Some people called it socialism and another mini civil war broke out that took a year to quell. In the end, by 2012, people accepted the fact that the barter system worked, and as a result it has become more efficient and responsive to the needs of the people.
    The drug cartel - the pharmaceutical industry, has been taken over by the states and medicines are distributed freely to those who need them. Pharmaceutical workers, scientists, researchers...all are paid in barter credits.
     
    My job? I collect taxes, in the form of barter, but things like tax return forms and taxation rates have been replaced by a uniform collection system that demands very little from individuals. It works because there is no longer any large scale fraud or loopholes that exempt businesses, so the ultimate value of taxation barter collected far exceeds anything ever amassed by the defunct IRS.
    There are still serious problems and hardships that Americans must endure. From Minneapolis west to Las Vegas, America looks a lot like the wild west of old. Roving bands of marauders and small armies terrorize cities, particularly in states that have been decimated by the Great Floods of 2012, during which an unprecedented series of hurricanes swept through the Gulf states and left a trail of complete destruction in their wake.
    I wish that I could tell you more, but there really isn't much to say now. I lost my family in the Great Floods and I live alone in a small house in Rosemount, Minnesota. I had a son, Michael Jr. He was murdered by marauders on September 13 - nine days ago. I cannot describe to you the sense of complete devastation that I feel - not only for my family but also for my country; a place that I still love dearly for everything it once stood for and everything it is trying to be once again.
    This is my journal. Perhaps one day someone will discover this and understand that the price for freedom and safety from tyranny is mighty high. Nothing should ever be taken for granted. Today is my birthday. I am 72 years old, but I won't be here much longer. There is only one hospital and it is overflowing with victims of a new virus that no one understands yet. I understand it, though...I am dying.
    If you pass through and read this, good luck to you wherever you go.§
  • ML Smith
    To davidwalters72  #180

    That was nice, Dave. You are absolutely on the money. (even though there is none)

    Question: How many bankers does it take to destroy an economy?
    Answer: As many as the administration will allow.

    The ObamaTitanic administration is taking the "Bushmania" approach to new levels of insanity. The message coming from Washington is "We don't have money so we might as well spend more." Dave, we can't even afford lifeboats.
  • Dora
    ML,  you must be such a joy to be around.   Your glass is constantly half-empty.   What a shame.
  • JackieM
    The glass is half-empty because the truth is the truth.  you can't make sugar out of shit!  it's time for those who refuse to understand what obama is doing to this country to start listening to other world leaders.  for once they are right!
  • Dora
    For Titus: 

    myths and falsehoods
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200904240038?f=h_top

    Still waiting to find out from you what freedoms Obama is taking from you.
  • Dora
    Titus:  you still want to claim that you don't listen to this crap?

    Titus and her "sources":

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200904100033?f=h_top
  • Titus Hunt
    Dora--how stupid are you?  i refuse to list what is being taken away because it is too obvious.  look at his policies.  by their very nature, they take freedoms away.
  • Titus Hunt
    dora--my heart has softened and i'll give you a hint.  think of an elderly woman who has income of only social security.  that is fixed income.  what happens to her with obama's policies?  that is not change or hope we want!
  • Dora
    hint:  My partner is retired and on social security, Titus.  nothing has changed regarding her social security income and Obama's "policies".   Ditto for my mother's social security income.
    there is some talk about "entitlement" programs... there have been for YEARS- Titus...  years!  and why?  because the "baby boomer" generation will come of age to collect social security .   
    idiotic suggestions have been to do away with social security and have people invest their monies... like in the stock market.   guess which party supported this notion... YOURS.  I find your party's suggestion  far more risky . 
    Furthermore, you have stated elsewhere on this site that Obama lied about what McCain had said in Florida during the election regarding social security.   Florida seniors facing daily decisions between food and needed prescription drugs  know that Millionaire McCain happily cashes his own Social Security check to the tune of $24,000-per-year but supported Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security. He also voted to raise the eligibility age for Medicare benefits and voted for steep increases in seniors’ Medicare premiums.
    Titus- once again let me remind you:

    "The sky is falling!!!!"
  • Leo Emmanuel Lochard
    SUSTAINABLE LONG-TERM ECONOMIC GROWTH
     
    Short-term solution to our economic woes with long-term planning measures is what we need at this time.   The litmus test for a “stimulus package” should be 6 months, as to witnessing movement towards re-employment of laid-off and/or discharged workers.  For we have to think in terms of their ability to live and maintain the standard of living they reached while working,  and to pay for expenses without losing every asset they've worked for, including their homestead.  Otherwise, a cruel unintended consequence results – the economic downturn will have destroyed everything they worked for.  And that would be a most cruel injustice.   Consequently, a most constructive time span for recovery should be, to take place within the same period during which the unemployed are receiving unemployment compensation insurance benefits, which I believe, is 26 weeks, after which they should obtain an extension, for a total period of 52 weeks - approximately a year, if these unemployed workers cannot find gainful employment. 
     
    The question is, if within that yearly period, no new job is found by discharged employees, or no laid-off workers are recalled by old employers, and unemployment benefits are exhausted, how do they pay their bills?  Those who have savings accounts or capital gains investments will start using them or will have had already started to use them to the point of bankruptcy until exhaustion; and after that, what do they do?  If these workers need additional sources of income beyond unemployment benefits lest they lose everything they've worked for, then the “stimulus package” is not just too late, but it is also ineffective regarding investment in job creation, lending practices, old business expansion, and new business capital formation.  This situation will be worse for workers than before they were employed, for they will have lost all sources of collateral for new credit and financial buying power.  Even when re-employed, it would be like “starting from scratch.” 
     
    I believe, our government also has to take a look at movement of investment capital, building and plant equipment, in the short-run, by making tax abatement incentives available to businesses that relocate within the borders of the United States.  For too long we've been rewarding relocation overseas without looking at our own enlightened interests.  Manufacturing industries have been transplanting their operations overseas for more than forty years, which is an ominous development that prompted some among us in the 1990’s to declare that our economy had become, a “service economy.”
     
    It is a mistake to consider ourselves a "service economy," for it can never absorb all employable workers at livable wages and salaries.  The “hardware,” substructure or base of economic production is still here.  In short, even cars with electronic boxes and “auto-startup” still need solid steel frames, rubber tires, plastic products, and concrete roads underneath.  We can never get rid of “the hardware” of economic production; we've only shifted production of manufactured goods overseas and then, are only re-importing them, because, so it appears, it's estimated by business executives to be cheaper in cost than producing them here, within our own borders. 
     
    Do not our steel corporations import already-processed steel from Japan - yet our need for steel itself has not diminished?  With derision, nations below our Southern frontier have often been referred to as "banana republics," because they are for the most part, "one-crop producers.”  Are we not aiming at the same thing by calling ourselves a "service economy," bent on exporting our own knowledge of economic substructure production while simultaneously ignoring corresponding basic sciences that were the foundation of our prosperity?  We cannot become “post-industrial” while our financial and monetary systems continue to lose their real-values base in real-labor, manufacturing production.  An economic manufacturing base is crucial to system’s stability, financial vitality, monetary durability, and securities instrumentation.
     
    What happened to our know-how in basic sciences, science education and application while we're importing electronics workers for the so-called “post-industrial” service economy?  Basic science research, education and application went down the drain.  There is a correspondence between our “losing the lead” in math and sciences and continuously exporting basic economic hardware infrastructure production, like manufacturing and tools.  We've also begun to lose the knowledge that prepared our workers for these jobs.  
     
    As we cannot wish to rid ourselves of our bodies because our minds are too advanced and complex in thinking through solutions to our problems, we cannot rid our economy of manufacturing industries because of telecommunications technology and computerized processes and still expect investment capital and financial instruments to be based on real-production values.   As the mind and the physical body are one, we must sustain our manufacturing industries at the same time we explore electronic technologies that help services proliferate.
     
    Not every one can become a computer programmer; not every one can become a hair stylist.  The market will not sustain an overcrowded field; not every one can become a food specialist or hotel manager.  We have many needs and interests, and a well-developed economy ought to be able to provide resources that accommodate the various occupational fields required to fulfill all of our needs.
     
    The so-called "post-industrial service economy," is a portion of the total comprehensive production economy that still requires a solid, firm, real “hardware base,” on which to valuate stocks, bonds, securities and other financial instruments.  And that “hardware base” must belong right here in the United States of America where it originated for our working people.  Otherwise, our whole financial, monetary and fiscal system will depend on “instrumentation operations” beyond our control. 
     
    It is not just impractical to imagine every worker behind a computer screen, with a cell phone in hand or at a cash register, but it is also unscientific and imprudent.  For, a healthy, comprehensively operating economy, has to have all components in responsive, adjustable proportions, - those that function as the "hardware base," such as manufacturing, steel, tools, construction, coal, oil, automobiles etc.., those that function as the "software superstructure," such as banking, financing and monetary operations, and those that function as “services” between the base and the superstructure, such as communications and transportation, hotels and restaurants, etc…, operating as transmission gears from production to distribution and consumption, so as to facilitate fluid mobility throughout all economic levels, from basic capital and equipment investment to result-oriented manufacturing production. 
     
    For example, from the 1890's onwards up to the first decade of the 20th Century, railroads, coal, metal mining, metal-works manufacturing, and oil exploration dominated development ("hardware"); from mid-1900's to the 1950's, automobile, steel, oil, construction, coal and durable goods production ("hardware") animated our economy.  As the “financial software” or “monetary superstructure” activity, like banking, was mainly unregulated, it led to the Stock Market Crash of 1929, causing the Great Depression.  Our current predicament is analogous to the conditions that precipitated those economic crises. 
       
    As the body cannot healthily function without the mind, the mind cannot thrive without its corresponding body.  And both mind and body properly function with communication and motor-sensory intermediation.  "Economic software," seasoned with constructive “services,” cannot dispense with its corresponding "economic hardware."  The last Wall Street financial collapse was due to the sin of extreme indulgence in "profits without production," - financial instrumentation “run amock,” without the benefit of real-production based values to support it.  
    Seymour Melman wrote a book called "Profits without Production" that was published in 1983. Because of the ratio of "services" to "manufacturing" activity in our country, it appears we are fast approaching an era of "profits without production." Many manufacturing corporations have transplanted their operations overseas, lured by "lower costs of production" due to the absence of organized labor unions, environmental laws and legislated minimum wages. These manufacturers would rather see Americans reduce their standards of living than elevating that of the rest of the world. Thus, stocks, bonds, and securities and other financial instruments that were based on the substance of real productive transactions which formerly attracted Wall Street financiers, investors, insurance companies, stockbrokers and the Stock Market itself, etc..., are no longer available. Still these institutions must continue to operate, as they seek to increase their profits from the same "buy, sell and trade activities." "Services" alone were not sufficient to guaranty the kind of profit rates that, for example, coal, oil, railroads, steel, trucking, automobiles and banking etc... previously generated. Thus, Wall Street "operators" began to "get very creative" in contriving "financial instruments" as profit-making mechanisms, to substitute for the missing industrial base transactions that "flew overseas," for those who disappeared through consolidations, and for those who "plain went out of business."
    For example, the so-called "housing bubble" was engineered by such operations. Financiers began to "bundle mortgages" to have them bought, sold and traded to inflate home prices at the same time, as if they were stocks and bonds backed by real production transactions or real production-based revenues. It's like these "indexes" or these "futures," that are manipulated, yet are not based on the substance of economic productivity. Since these transactions had no original capital or financing to back them up in the first place, the whole “house of cards” collapsed when workers lost their jobs and could not make mortgage payments. In short, financial instrument issuance must be regulated in kind and scope.
    It seems that all efforts to control damages will be fruitless in preventing a recurrence of market failure, unless Congress regulates the types of financial instruments that can be "invented" for trading.
    We’ve been blessed beyond measure with American entrepreneurial creativity and progressive economic development that have afforded our workers the highest standard of living in the world.  The current crises must be remedied lest we lose our very capacity to constructively and healthily prosper, as God has mightily empowered us and blessed us, from generation to generation.
     
    Consequently, we also need a long-term plan addressing economic structure issues that transcend Keynesian public sector investment and intervention, in order to revitalize our national priorities in the face of the “bandwagon of globalism.”   “Globalism” cannot mean domestic economic suicide. “Globalism” cannot imply a “post-industrial service economy” that short-circuits our capacity for inventive ingenuity and manufacturing innovation which are replete with potentialities for new capital formation based on real production values; this, in the long run, would re-stabilize our monetary system and financial instrumentation activities.
     
    The short-term “stimulus package” should, as many have already recommended, conscientiously remedy the present plight of American workers as it provides immediate relief, now and in the foreseeable future.  However, we also need to revisit our understanding of political economy within the framework of our comprehensive knowledge of American economic development and financial prosperity.
     
    Thank you.  With God’s blessings,        Sincerely,
  • Titus Hunt
    I don't think the stimulus package will help greatly in the short term.  it may employee construction folks and illegal day laborers for a while.  however, everyone is not qualified to do those jobs.  small businesses are struggling, laying off workers and shutting their doors.  until obama gets serious about actually stimulating the meat and potatoes of our country, it will not work.  during his campaign he said he would reward businesses that choose to stay in the US instead of moving overseas--hasn't happened.  tax rates need to be competitive with the rest of the world and they are not.  trade policies need to be fair but they are not.  obama said he wanted to give businesses $3,000 for every employee hired.  now let me see.  according to my numbers if a person earns $50,000 and the company receives $3,000, the company is still short $47,000.  i don't think the credit is in his plan as he promised though.  when the economy is in a crisis, the government needs to take action that will immediately help the core of our country--the small businesses.  this has not happened so the economy will continue to struggle more than what is necessary.  when the economy starts to recover, it won't be because of obama's polices.  it will be in spite of them.  the $13/week in tax cuts for the middleclass is not a tax cut.  it is a bone.  how will that make a difference in families across this nation?  obama cannot say he gave tax cuts to 95% of families with a straight face unless he is a good liar.  i suggest every family save that money to pay towards the 22% increase in energy costs that is coming with obama's cap and trade program.  so where is the tax cut?  how is obama going to pay for families who are struggling because of the inflation that he created?  how are the companies going to cope?  most of the economic problems are easily corrected but obama and his liberal followers are purposely making it difficult and are doing this to make a name for themselves and to continue this spending spree.  if they don't have enough money they will look to the taxpayers to foot the bill and raise their taxes or try to borrow it.  they have no limits and obama's supporters will not insist that they need to have a threshold on spending.  it is like going to California from NY via China.  however, i'm not so sure the end result will actually be in California!
blog comments powered by Disqus