financial regulation — The Watering Hole

227 posts

charger #1 · Apr 25, 2010 06:58 UTC

This is a hot topic for me.

I am interested to find out:

a) where the "tea party" is going to come down on the idea of financial regulation of the derivatives market. After all, nothing has done more to fuck our economy than exotic derivatives running wild like Lindsey Lohan with a kilo of coke in Vegas. I wonder if this will inspire the same anger that other economy-affecting issues has. After all, not all "tea partiers" are card-carrying Republicans (though most of them probably are). Some of them must find corporations as reprehensible as they find the government.

b) how the Republicans will spin their united front against derivative regulation. It's pretty hard to hide from regulating something that caused a global recession... but they've stated that they will stand all 41 senators in opposition. Will this have any effect on the midterms?

chase #2 · Apr 25, 2010 23:01 UTC

it will have no effect. whether it should or not is another argument, however the large overwhelming majority of the nation has no clue what has caused our recent recession/depression/whatever.

Hookbender #3 · Apr 26, 2010 17:25 UTC

Won't have any effect for me. I'm voting republican accross the board, probably.

fingers #4 · Apr 26, 2010 21:28 UTC

Interesting

People don't understand it,
They don't understand what has happened.

The last fire chief burnt the building down but are blaming the new one for the smouldering rubble and want the old one back.

It is pretty laughable really,

and considering I make a living in the global "Wall Street" machine in exotic derivatives it is even more ironic,

But so long as we have the Chase and Hookbender vote - it will be ok.

I guess from self interest I should be happy about it,
But in reality it disturbs me that the pawns are so unaware and easily lead in this game.

I think the industry is valid in general and doesn't need supervision but fankly I know markets where it is not and so does everybody involved who has a brain.
I am not personally involved in any of those areas.

And in many ways I think the legislation proposed is an ass.

I also think that the fraud - and that is what it was - primarily involves the rating agencies,

They should be torn a new asshole as they have the gall to throw the world into recession through their AAA blessing of dodgy securities and then
live to pronounce on the credit worthyness of the victims of it.
That is simply astonishing to me.

Why these agencies have been allowed to sail through unscathed is the biggest scandal of the whole crisis and suggests they are protected by huge political forces.

This sham was caused by commoditising the historically fundemental core responsibility of a financial institution which is managing credit risk.
The ratings agencies effectively advised the market to buy crud through their hyped up ratings of the crud and blessed away the credit risk.

And that could only happen with the collusion of governments and agencies.

Yet the only finger is pointed at banks

Which in drug crime wave terms is like solely focusing on the street dealer but leaving a corrupt mayor and police out of the picture.

So I am sceptical.

Hookbender #5 · Apr 26, 2010 22:25 UTC

I don't necessarily blame Bush or Obama for the recent mess.

I'm concerned about the rasing in taxes and the amount of money spent by governement in general. Doesn't seem to matter which party is in power or who is President at this time. Meaning mainly Bush and Obama.

The only way to get rid of Obama is to vote Repub next time. I'm voting Repub accross the board because it's a safe bet that the Dems went with Obama and his spending and I'm tired of searching for what these guys have done in the past and what they'll say they will do in the future only to find out they either can't or never intended to do what they promised. So my future vote will be determined by what the current office holder does or doesn't do. I'm gonna vote in a political manner. ;D

Maybe everyone should vote with punishment in mind for those who don't produce. :D

It's the Godly way to vote. ;D

ironsheep #6 · Apr 26, 2010 22:43 UTC

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA (The Borowitz Report) - Eleven indicted Somali pirates dropped a bombshell in a U.S. court today, revealing that their entire piracy operation is a subsidiary of banking giant Goldman Sachs.

There was an audible gasp in court when the leader of the pirates announced, "We are doing God's work. We work for Lloyd Blankfein."

The pirate, who said he earned a bonus of $48 million in dubloons last year, elaborated on the nature of the Somalis' work for Goldman, explaining that the pirates forcibly attacked ships that Goldman had already shorted.

"We were functioning as investment bankers, only every day was casual Friday," the pirate said.

The pirate acknowledged that they merged their operations with Goldman in late 2008 to take advantage of the more relaxed regulations governing bankers as opposed to pirates, "plus to get our share of the bailout money."

In the aftermath of the shocking revelations, government prosecutors were scrambling to see if they still had a case against the Somali pirates, who would now be treated as bankers in the eyes of the law.

"There are lots of laws that could bring these guys down if they were, in fact, pirates," one government source said. "But if they're bankers, our hands are tied."

fingers #7 · Apr 26, 2010 22:59 UTC

Republican headquarters.

Wow that was some shit storm we created there - money safe ? - all the doners.
yeah, gonna cost a shit load for the country though - our doners are all ok - got out of the US in time.
But heh - we gonna lose the election
yeah - but blame it on the next guy
sure - we can say he is spending too much
hahahaha - spending too much to stop the country decending down the shithole we made.
hohoho - fuck him
hahahaha - give it 15 months and they will be wanting us back.
We can act all principled and oppose everything he does
and blame everything we caused on him.
Just make sure we lose the votes on the spending though
Yeah - fuck - we don't want to inherit the death spiralling shit - it's his fault
hahahahaha
hahahahaha
the fuckers have forgot that Bush started this spending in the emergency of late 2008.
yeah - fucking idiots.
well fucking idiots are voters to
hahahahah
our kind of people.

Hookbender #8 · Apr 26, 2010 23:26 UTC

I farted. :P

CraigB #9 · Apr 27, 2010 01:34 UTC

ironsheep — Apr 26, 2010NORFOLK, VIRGINIA (The Borowitz Report) - Eleven indicted Somali pirates dropped a bombshell in a U.S. court today, revealing that their entire piracy operation is a subsidiary of banking giant Goldman Sachs.

There was an audible gasp in court when the leader of the pirates announced, "We are doing God's work. We work for Lloyd Blankfein."

The pirate, who said he earned a bonus of $48 million in dubloons last year, elaborated on the nature of the Somalis' work for Goldman, explaining that the pirates forcibly attacked ships that Goldman had already shorted.

"We were functioning as investment bankers, only every day was casual Friday," the pirate said.

The pirate acknowledged that they merged their operations with Goldman in late 2008 to take advantage of the more relaxed regulations governing bankers as opposed to pirates, "plus to get our share of the bailout money."

In the aftermath of the shocking revelations, government prosecutors were scrambling to see if they still had a case against the Somali pirates, who would now be treated as bankers in the eyes of the law.

"There are lots of laws that could bring these guys down if they were, in fact, pirates," one government source said. "But if they're bankers, our hands are tied."

Heh, did that come from the Onion? ;D

CraigB #10 · Apr 27, 2010 01:35 UTC

Hookbender — Apr 26, 2010I don't necessarily blame Bush or Obama for the recent mess.

I'm concerned about the rasing in taxes and the amount of money spent by governement in general. Doesn't seem to matter which party is in power or who is President at this time. Meaning mainly Bush and Obama.

The only way to get rid of Obama is to vote Repub next time. I'm voting Repub accross the board because it's a safe bet that the Dems went with Obama and his spending and I'm tired of searching for what these guys have done in the past and what they'll say they will do in the future only to find out they either can't or never intended to do what they promised. So my future vote will be determined by what the current office holder does or doesn't do. I'm gonna vote in a political manner. ;D

Maybe everyone should vote with punishment in mind for those who don't produce. :D

It's the Godly way to vote. ;D

That's exactly what they want you to do: Vote for the Republicans or the Democrats. You'll end up in the same mess, just with different approaches and different asshats talking.

Hookbender #11 · Apr 27, 2010 02:04 UTC

It's like poker. Vote against mistake. Eventually, hopefully, we'll get a government that does what the people want done instead of what government wants to do. Well, maybe not. ;D

ironsheep #12 · Apr 27, 2010 03:03 UTC

saw it here: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/somali-pirates-disclose-they-are-subsidiary-goldman-sachs

I guess it's a copy from some guy's email blog or something (The Borowitz Report)? dunno.

...ships that Goldman had already shorted. lol.

charger #13 · Apr 27, 2010 03:18 UTC

Hookbender — Apr 27, 2010It's like poker. Vote against mistake. Eventually, hopefully, we'll get a government that does what the people want done instead of what government wants to do. Well, maybe not. ;D

CraigB #14 · Apr 27, 2010 03:33 UTC

charger — Apr 27, 2010 Glad to see you voting Republican again--in Alabama. For a while there you really shook things up, it was real close in Alabama in '08, right?

Yeah, the only candidate to get more votes than Bush was a write-in: Dale Earnhardt. ;D

chase #15 · Apr 27, 2010 04:15 UTC

fingers — Apr 26, 2010

Republican headquarters.

Wow that was some shit storm we created there - money safe ? - all the doners.
yeah, gonna cost a shit load for the country though - our doners are all ok - got out of the US in time.
But heh - we gonna lose the election
yeah - but blame it on the next guy
sure - we can say he is spending too much
hahahaha - spending too much to stop the country decending down the shithole we made.
hohoho - fuck him
hahahaha - give it 15 months and they will be wanting us back.
We can act all principled and oppose everything he does
and blame everything we caused on him.
Just make sure we lose the votes on the spending though
Yeah - fuck - we don't want to inherit the death spiralling shit - it's his fault
hahahahaha
hahahahaha
the fuckers have forgot that Bush started this spending in the emergency of late 2008.
yeah - fucking idiots.
well fucking idiots are voters to
hahahahah
our kind of people.

BINGEWOOD #16 · Apr 27, 2010 04:43 UTC

It was pretty cool how they came out with it and started the bailouts the week after their candidate, who they didn't seem to like too much, said the economy is strong tho...

fingers #17 · Apr 27, 2010 08:08 UTC

Clinton had fuck all to do with it
he wasn't president ?
Sub prime fraud dates to 2004-2006 during the Bush 2nd stint.
Bush campaigned for it - no doubt he thought it would make rebublican voters
out if home owning sub primers.
He doubled you national debt as well.
When you werent in an actual recession.

Bit thanks for your vote for wall st - it's much appreciated
jobs market and wages are taking off again.

And don't bother mentioning the glass steagle thing as
that still hasn't been reinstated and any moves to do so
will be blocked by republicans.

fingers #18 · Apr 27, 2010 08:13 UTC

Hookbender — Apr 26, 2010I farted. :P

Yeah and it makes more sense.
You must be ready to go back to believing in god now.

chase #19 · Apr 27, 2010 15:45 UTC

fingers — Apr 27, 2010Clinton had fuck all to do with it
he wasn't president ?
Sub prime fraud dates to 2004-2006 during the Bush 2nd stint.
Bush campaigned for it - no doubt he thought it would make rebublican voters
out if home owning sub primers.
He doubled you national debt as well.
When you werent in an actual recession.

Bit thanks for your vote for wall st - it's much appreciated
jobs market and wages are taking off again.

And don't bother mentioning the glass steagle thing as
that still hasn't been reinstated and any moves to do so
will be blocked by republicans.

i don't believe your that ignorant. but i'll recap just for arguments sake. this article explains it pretty well, so i'll just repost.

The subprime mortgage meltdown has cost the world 15% of its market capitalization, about $9 trillion. The primary culprit who caused all of this financial loss, pain and suffering is not the mortgage companies. Neither is it the overextended borrowers. It is our own federal regulations interfering with the free market.

For over half a century, only 45% of Americans owned their own home. Then home ownership rose in the postwar period, settling at about 64% in the early 1990s.

In 1994, President Clinton had the good intention of raising home ownership to 67.5% by 2000. He sponsored the revision of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations, which required banks to increase mortgage lending to low- and moderate-income families. The banks complied and increased their lending to these families by 80%, more than twice any other group.

The sentiment was noble but ill advised. Community groups could now prevent banks from mergers, branch expansions or the creation of new branches simply by protesting to any of four different regulatory agencies. But these traditional activities of banks are necessary to stay responsive to the dynamics of the marketplace. To maintain this ability, banks paid millions to these community groups. In theory, they were supporting mortgage education efforts and fair lending practices. In reality, they were carrying a block of poor loans on their books simply as the price of doing business.

These community groups described the regulatory pressure forcing banks to increase their underwriting of low-income loans as a positive and encouraging trend. Bruce Marks of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America boasted to the New York Times that he had gotten $3.8 billion in loan commitments in the city of Boston alone.

Faced with excessive regulatory interference, banks risked additional loan defaults rather than face financial penalties and blocked business. But in a situation characterized by excessive regulation, we all pay the price.

The unintended consequences of good intentions can do more economic harm than all the mean-spirited greed within capitalism.

Part of the good intention was forcing banks to be good neighbors by making altruistic loans that discriminated in favor of underprivileged communities. Any attempts by banks to set higher rates, terms or conditions on people with questionable credit was labeled "predatory lending" and used to hold lenders hostage. This form of price controls held the price on questionable loans artificially low.

Normally, price encourages consumers to self-ration and to use less of a limited resource such as capital and put it where it is likely to do the greatest good. Price controls cause shortages because lenders protect their losses by extending fewer risky loans. But this time, regulations forced them to continue making the loans.

Price controls and lower interest rates caused a surge in the demand for mortgage loans. In response, banks raised the requirements to qualify for a traditional loan and wrote more adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs). Even ignoring their poor credit rating, questionable borrowers could only qualify for an ARM, and they could barely afford the low teaser.

Clinton's goal was met in 2000 and then surpassed, boosting U.S. home ownership by 2005 to 68.9%. Ownership for minorities grew by 24.1% between 1993 and 2005, nearly three times the rate of for non-minorities.

Another good intention driving the legislation was that home ownership correlates to building wealth, stability and community support. If only we could get struggling people to own their own home, they too could share in the American dream. But we build wealth by deciding consciously to delay purchases such as a home, not to overextend ourselves financially to reach our goals.

The idea was that purchasing a home is an investment. But the home you own is not an investment. An investment pays you money. Rental property is an investment. The house you live in is a liability, which increases proportionately with its size. The fastest way to own a house is to rent as small as possible and save and invest the difference. Low-income households have limited resources, and home ownership drains too high a percentage of their income. In fact, studies show that low-income home owners save less than renters and have less of an emergency fund.

The belief was that home owners build equity in their homes by making regular payments that include both interest and principal. For most families, paying a mortgage is a forced form of savings. But this assumes home owners have the cash flow that allows them to build equity in their houses. Encourage those unaccustomed or unable to save to become home owners, and they are apt to refinance and take any growing equity out of their house to fund other expenses.

In fact, that is exactly what happened.

Another good intention was the assumption that mortgages are always good business for banks. Lenders who didn't cheerfully agree were accused of discrimination against minorities by using "old-fashioned" criteria, such as the size of the mortgage payment relative to applicants' income, their credit history or verifying their savings and income. Instead, applicants merely had to demonstrate their ability to manage debt by attending a credit-counseling program.

But these old-fashioned criteria were historically what made loans secure and limited defaults. Forcing banks to lend money to those least likely to repay is not a sound policy.

That the credit debacle took two presidential terms to unravel is simply how economics works. Dropping interest rates and rising house prices masked the default rates as those who would have defaulted simply refinanced a larger loan, milking their homes for 100% of their value like an ATM machine.

Economist professors Stan Liebowitz and Ted Day criticized the program in 1998 in their article "Mortgages, Minorities, and Discrimination" in Economic Inquiry. They wrote, "After the warm and fuzzy glow of 'flexible underwriting standards' has worn off, we may discover that they are nothing more than standards that lead to bad loans. . . . hese policies will have done a disservice to their putative beneficiaries if . . . they are dispossessed from their homes." Unfortunately, no one ever listens to economists.

Everyone was busy praising lenders using relaxed underwriting standards as the paragon of virtue. Although widely understood that approving minority mortgage applications stretched the rules a bit, it was considered good social engineering. Now they are universally criticized by the same crowd that formerly praised them.

Today, the people who advocated lax lending standards are self-righteously critical of lenders for letting this debacle happen. Having forced millions of bad loans, they are now complaining the government is paying a small portion of the losses back to Bear Stearns. Having enacted regulations that ruined the U.S. financial markets, they now claim the credit problems stem from a lack of regulation. Only government uses its power to cause such havoc and then asserts it needs more power.

Bailing out borrowers makes the least sense of all. Although routinely cast as victims, we must remember they substituted attendance at a credit-counseling class for hard collateral in their promise to repay. They purchased homes beyond their means, lived in relative luxury and bilked banks of any building equity by refinancing cash-outs of their homes every time real estate markets appreciated.

Although it isn't their fault for padding their lifestyle by exploiting regulatory mistakes, borrowers don't deserve a penny more. Regulators especially don't deserve a second chance to impose rigid rules on a system that requires dynamic adjustments. Having been hurt so badly by the conspiracy of regulators and irresponsible borrowers, we should at least allow lenders the consolation of foreclosing on the house of cards.

If the subprime meltdown was the result of greedy capitalists, you would have to assume they were awfully dumb to have lost so much money. The markets are smarter than that. Only feel-good legislation could be so naive. How can more government regulation help when there is universal ignorance of how the government caused the problem in the first place?

fingers #20 · Apr 27, 2010 19:42 UTC

That article explains nothing, it is a pathetic attempt to avoid responsibility by republicans and lay blame elsewhere.

Utter bullshit,

You need to research the FACTS

The subprime crisis was caused by mortgages originated between 2004 - 2006

and worse still - those later mortgages had a self destruct button built in.

Nothing to pay for 2 years - and then 12% repayments kicked in,
repayments that exceeded the stated income of the recipients (even liars) - known at the outset.
hence huge levels of default.

which explains the short time period 2004 - 2006 between issue and crunch.

Ask yourself a question - if it was Clinton's fault, why didn't it happen under him.
Why did it happen under Bush

why this huge rapid growth acceleration 2004 - 2006.

Who was in government in this period - republicans in all branches.
republicans controlled the whitehouse and both houses when the subprime debacle happened in 2004 - 2006

These are FACTS - not opinion pieces.

The lucky break the US (and the world) had was that by 2008 dems had control in congress and equality in the senate,
Which allowed Bush to pass legislation to bail out of the mess - something which would have failed to pass otherwise.

Then they would have succeeded in truly fucking things up in ways you can't even imagine from your ignorance.

So yes - the mess starts and stops with republicans.

I give Bush his due - in that he didn't let ideology stand in the way of what had to be done once the system was going down.

posting opinion pieces as evidence does not count as support for an argument,
it just shows ignorance and demonstrates your partisan bias trumps reality,

charger #21 · Apr 27, 2010 20:22 UTC

chase — Apr 27, 2010[quote author=fingers link=1272178696/0#6 date=1272322760]

Republican headquarters.

Wow that was some shit storm we created there - money safe ? - all the doners.
yeah, gonna cost a shit load for the country though - our doners are all ok - got out of the US in time.
But heh - we gonna lose the election
yeah - but blame it on the next guy
sure - we can say he is spending too much
hahahaha - spending too much to stop the country decending down the shithole we made.
hohoho - fuck him
hahahaha - give it 15 months and they will be wanting us back.
We can act all principled and oppose everything he does
and blame everything we caused on him.
Just make sure we lose the votes on the spending though
Yeah - fuck - we don't want to inherit the death spiralling shit - it's his fault
hahahahaha
hahahahaha
the fuckers have forgot that Bush started this spending in the emergency of late 2008.
yeah - fucking idiots.
well fucking idiots are voters to
hahahahah
our kind of people.

surely you don't think the collapse was purely republican caused? turning a blind eye to what clinton's administration did for the real estate portion of the collapse must be hard. the entire 2 party system is to blame for where we are now. it's 6 one way or 1/2 dozen the other. same fucking thing

I don't blame Republicans. I blame greed.

However, I do think the Republicans look like asses refusing to regulate derivatives, after what's occurred. Although I understand that selling greed and selling the idea that people can become billionaires makes the populace happy, a lot like selling an idea of heaven makes people less miserable with their earthly existence, I don't see a fucking speck of accountability by the financial community. All those fucks creating exotic financial instruments on pure fantasy, then making million dollar bonuses upon sale, never had an ounce of responsibility, financially or otherwise, upon their failure. That to me is as wrong as it gets.

charger #22 · Apr 27, 2010 20:35 UTC

chase — Apr 27, 2010

The subprime mortgage meltdown has cost the world 15% of its market capitalization, about $9 trillion. The primary culprit who caused all of this financial loss, pain and suffering is not the mortgage companies. Neither is it the overextended borrowers. It is our own federal regulations interfering with the free market.

--blah, blah, blah--

Chase, do you actually believe that poor minorities are the reason we are in this mess? Seems to me that rich white folks made an awful lot of money off of the crisis--yet you blame the person at the low end who ultimately is left holding the bill? Do you think ANY loan brokers are responsible? No one forced them to market insane loans... it was nothing but greed.

And do you think it was all those "poor minorities" at AIG who came up with the brilliant idea of credit default swaps? To sell insurance for a fraction of the cost of the bad loans, that then paid off in full when the loans crashed? You think that Clinton made that up?

What you saw was unregulated speculation gone wild. I know it fits your world view better if it's all the fault of government regulation, but the truth is much simpler... it was the wild wild west out there. There was no regulation. Fingers mentioned the credit rating agencies. Who was overseeing them? Let's see--banks could create the financial instrument, then hand-pick the credit rating agency, and then banks paid them... it's not hard to see how a little regulation could have made a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE there. But there was none. Did that work out well?

Facing an unregulated system and armed with as much greed as they could aspire to, it wasn't hard to see this outcome--if you knew where to look.

If you still don't understand that, then I don't know how we can have a conversation about it.

Take a listen to This American Life's investigation of Magnetar, and the financial instruments they created, and then made huge bets against. If you still blame poor people after this, you're insane.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/405/inside-job

And ProPublica's reporting:
http://www.propublica.org/feature/the-magnetar-trade-how-one-hedge-fund-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble-going

fingers #23 · Apr 27, 2010 20:59 UTC

Sure greed is to blame,

but that is abstract noun territory.

The specifics are about who allowed that greed to flourish as an unchecked infection
It was a patently fraudulent activity from front to back.
It is obvious looking at it now and would be obvious at the time to anyone with any responsibility in regulating the market.

This is like selling drugs that kill people not cure them.
or selling cars that collapse on impact killing their occupants.
buildings that fall down under the smallest earth quake.

All markets are regulated

and that is the republicans fault.

It is why I want them out of power in the US for a decade until they learn the lesson.

This didn't just affect the US it spread contagion around the world.

It just infuriates me that republican apologists can rely on the ideological training of voters.
Like the pope can rely on catholics to deny responsibility.

The former bases it defence on - it was the dems.
the later - it was secularism

What a joke.

Saddam Hussain could blame his problems on the US.
So can Iran.

But it doesn't make it true.

Hookbender #24 · Apr 27, 2010 23:03 UTC

fingers — Apr 27, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1272178696/0#7 date=1272324410]I farted. :P

Yeah and it makes more sense.
You must be ready to go back to believing in god now.

Nahhhh. Maybe you need to read this though.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/04/clinton-rubin-and-summers-gave-me-wrong-advice-on-derivatives-and-i-was-wrong-to-take-it.html

Hookbender #25 · Apr 27, 2010 23:07 UTC

charger — Apr 27, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1272178696/0#10 date=1272333860]It's like poker. Vote against mistake. Eventually, hopefully, we'll get a government that does what the people want done instead of what government wants to do. Well, maybe not. ;D

Eight years of Bush wasn't enough for you?

The best part of this is that you voted for Obama based on his platform, presumably, and he's done more than any president in recent history to actually enact that platform, and you keep saying he's not doing what he promised to do. Dude, he's doing exactly what he promised to do.

Glad to see you voting Republican again--in Alabama. For a while there you really shook things up, it was real close in Alabama in '08, right?

Understanding more about politics now than ever, which may not be saying much, leads me to believe Bush wasn't the only one who dropped the ball. I don't blame Bush solely. In fact, I read somewhere that Bush tried to get Fanny and Freddy regulated 17 or so times while he was President. Not sure that's true.

fingers #26 · Apr 27, 2010 23:10 UTC

Hookbender — Apr 27, 2010

Understanding more about politics now than ever, which may not be saying much, leads me to believe Bush wasn't the only one who dropped the ball. I don't blame Bush solely. In fact, I read somewhere that Bush tried to get Fanny and Freddy regulated 17 or so times while he was President. Not sure that's true.

Your dumb enough to believe anything

I would advise the republicans to take advantage of it.

Hookbender #27 · Apr 27, 2010 23:17 UTC

" 2001: The Bush Administration tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but the Democratic Congress blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.

2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called 'the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago'. Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democratic Congress killed reform.

2005: Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: 'We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk'. Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole". Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP; of trying to 'cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership' The bill went nowhere.

2007: By now Fannie and Freddie owned or guarantee over half of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market fell in '07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making."

Pulled from a suspect site but it seems that Bush did attempt some reform on Freddie and Fannie.

Hookbender #28 · Apr 27, 2010 23:19 UTC

fingers — Apr 27, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1272178696/0#24 date=1272409640]

Understanding more about politics now than ever, which may not be saying much, leads me to believe Bush wasn't the only one who dropped the ball. I don't blame Bush solely. In fact, I read somewhere that Bush tried to get Fanny and Freddy regulated 17 or so times while he was President. Not sure that's true.

Your dumb enough to believe anything

I would advise the republicans to take advantage of it.

Oh, and your the man with all the answers? Well sir, your in the wrong field. Have you forgotton we're talking about politics?

Did you like my Clinton post? He doesn't agree with you. ;D

Yeah, I'll believe anything. That's why the last statement was...."Not sure that's true." ;D

Drank to much whisky today? Your in the fighten mood. May want to lay off a while. ;D

fingers #29 · Apr 27, 2010 23:20 UTC

He didn't though - he had all arms of government at his disposal in those important years 2004 - 2006

what did he do - nothing.

So it is pile of crap.

he is alone in presiding over something like this.

Hookbender #30 · Apr 27, 2010 23:23 UTC

Sure he is. And Obama is alone in getting healthcare passed exactly the way he wants too. Shit.

If Bush tried to reform and was blocked by dems, what the fuck would you like him to do then? Nuke em?

I'm not saying Bush is innocent, just that it seems he made many attempts to do some reform and was blocked. His hands may have been tied. Many people were in part responsible for this crap, dems and repubs. Government and business.

What we need to do is to quit worrying about who's at fault and determine exactly what caused the problems we have now and make sure it CAN"T happen again.

fingers #31 · Apr 27, 2010 23:23 UTC

Hookbender — Apr 27, 2010[quote author=fingers link=1272178696/25#25 date=1272409803][quote author=Hookbender link=1272178696/0#24 date=1272409640]

Understanding more about politics now than ever, which may not be saying much, leads me to believe Bush wasn't the only one who dropped the ball. I don't blame Bush solely. In fact, I read somewhere that Bush tried to get Fanny and Freddy regulated 17 or so times while he was President. Not sure that's true.

Your dumb enough to believe anything

I would advise the republicans to take advantage of it.

Oh, and your the man with all the answers? Well sir, your in the wrong field. Have you forgotton we're talking about politics?

Did you like my Clinton post? He doesn't agree with you. ;D

Bollocks - all he is saying is that his legislatiomn didn't take into account that a later government could be such an abject vandal.

much like you might blame yourself for leaving a window open so a criminal could enter.

fingers #32 · Apr 27, 2010 23:28 UTC

Hookbender — Apr 27, 2010Sure he is. And Obama is alone in getting healthcare passed exactly the way he wants too. Shit.

Yeah Obama is responsible for that alone - it has fuck all to do with republicans

wtf are you talking about you apologist,

were Bush and the republicans actually in power.

is that your excuse that they weren't

sad fucking denial excuse.

Hookbender #33 · Apr 27, 2010 23:35 UTC

I'm not making excuses. I'm also not pretending to have all the correct answers.

There are way to many bad decisions made accross the board to carpet blame Bush alone for the problems we have now.

But, you can do that if you like. I don't buy it and I challange you to persuade me that is indeed lagit.

I'm listening.

fingers #34 · Apr 27, 2010 23:42 UTC

Bottom line is republicans fucked up and haven't got the decency or backbone to accept the blame.

it is not their fault - they want to share the love.
and if that means fucking you over a second time then so be it.

it's Obama's fault and Clinton.

yeah sure - dat makes sense - hic.

dat Bush was trying to stop that Obama subprime - hic - stuff.

hic - it happened under Clinton - and got worse under Obama.

It was glory days under Bush,

One thing I am very very glad of

I knew this shit had hit around July 2006.

I was so glad the crisis point hit under Bush.

Damn close thing.

if it had hit in early 2009 -

let's say this

I doubt you and chase would be arguing 50/50 about the blame would you,

you would just nail it on Obama.

fingers #35 · Apr 27, 2010 23:50 UTC

Hookbender — Apr 27, 2010I'm not making excuses. I'm also not pretending to have all the correct answers.

There are way to many bad decisions made accross the board to carpet blame Bush alone for the problems we have now.

But, you can do that if you like. I don't buy it and I challange you to persuade me that is indeed lagit.

I'm listening.

Who else can you blame when the government is all in the hands of the republicans during the period it all fucked up.

the tooth fairy - god.

They made no effort at all to do anything,

their only defence is that they didn't realise or understand.

Claiming they didn't have the power

man Obama just passed a health care act which is far tougher politically.

They had the power - they chose not to use it - either through ignorance, ideology or incompetence.

or because they are in hoc more likely -

the most likely truth is that they wil be found to be funded by the interests involved.

as anyone close to the information - as a government will be uniquely in possession of - will have known at the time.

it is a sham.

Hookbender #36 · Apr 27, 2010 23:51 UTC

http://www.mcculloughsite.net/stingray/2009/02/21/bush-administration-repeatedly-tried-to-refor.php

Yep, all repubs. Wait, is Barnny a repub, or a dem?

You can talk down to me all you want. I'm not assigning blame. Just spreading it around in a more fair way. ;D

fingers #37 · Apr 27, 2010 23:56 UTC

The reason that republicans will oppose this "examination" of wall street is that they know that
a nuclear clause is in place - you let them go down they will name and shame the politicians.

This will harm both parties to some extent

but the vast lion share will be republican and Bush government figures.

So of course their party line is a big fat NO to everything.

Squeeze Goldman to far and they will split and bleat about Goldman connections throughout the Bush administration and how they were involved as well.

Hookbender #38 · Apr 27, 2010 23:57 UTC

Obama just passed healthcare yes....but its probably less than half the stuff he wanted to do.....even while the dems were in power, so to speak. Your argument has way to many holes in it. Like a Alabama two lane highway. ;D Those fucking horses are killing our roads you know. ;D

fingers #39 · Apr 27, 2010 23:58 UTC

Hookbender — Apr 27, 2010http://www.mcculloughsite.net/stingray/2009/02/21/bush-administration-repeatedly-tried-to-refor.php

Yep, all repubs. Wait, is Barnny a repub, or a dem?

You can talk down to me all you want. I'm not assigning blame. Just spreading it around in a more fair way. ;D

Subprime had nothing to do with the Freddie and Fannie mortgage agencies.
They didn't make them - that is partly how sub rpime is defined - F & F can't deal with them.

another basic fact

F& F got hit in the fall out from it when confidence in the whole system was lost.

the subject of reform of F & F is another matter

and who knows what Bush's call for reform was - make F & F take subprime.

a call for reform is not something you can assume was a positive thing.

Hookbender #40 · Apr 28, 2010 00:00 UTC

You keep saying that Bush didn't try to do anything. How is trying to reform Freddie and Fannie in 2001 not doing anything? And what about the other 16 attempts?

fingers #41 · Apr 28, 2010 00:02 UTC

I just said -

his reform for F & F was what exactly.

make them issue subprime mortgages probably considering his track record in government.

fingers #42 · Apr 28, 2010 00:04 UTC

What was the substance of his 17 calls ?

and why didn't he pass any of them ?

he had the power.

Hookbender #43 · Apr 28, 2010 00:05 UTC

fingers — Apr 27, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1272178696/25#35 date=1272412310]http://www.mcculloughsite.net/stingray/2009/02/21/bush-administration-repeatedly-tried-to-refor.php

Yep, all repubs. Wait, is Barnny a repub, or a dem?

You can talk down to me all you want. I'm not assigning blame. Just spreading it around in a more fair way. ;D

Hookbender #44 · Apr 28, 2010 00:07 UTC

fingers — Apr 28, 2010What was the substance of his 17 calls ?

and why didn't he pass any of them ?

he had the power.

I have no clue. I can do research and probably find out for ya, but I'd rather not. Takes to much time. And, I don't care enough to find out. ;D

fingers #45 · Apr 28, 2010 00:09 UTC

The thing is it is the non F & F mortgages nearly brought down the US.

maybe that is what Bush was about.

F & F are ideologically bad - so open things up to other mortgage models - like the subprime from wall street shstick

It fits very well in fact.

he got shafted by it - as he is captain failure in every organisation he has lead in life - what's changed.

fingers #46 · Apr 28, 2010 00:10 UTC

Hookbender — Apr 28, 2010[quote author=fingers link=1272178696/25#41 date=1272413064]What was the substance of his 17 calls ?

and why didn't he pass any of them ?

he had the power.

I have no clue. I can do research and probably find out for ya, but I'd rather not. Takes to much time. And, I don't care enough to find out. ;D

Then don't fucking vote

Hookbender #47 · Apr 28, 2010 01:22 UTC

fingers — Apr 28, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1272178696/25#43 date=1272413252][quote author=fingers link=1272178696/25#41 date=1272413064]What was the substance of his 17 calls ?

and why didn't he pass any of them ?

he had the power.

I have no clue. I can do research and probably find out for ya, but I'd rather not. Takes to much time. And, I don't care enough to find out. ;D

Then don't fucking vote

O.K. And you don't bitch about our situation because you don't know the answer either.

As I said before, there are to many people to blame for this stuff than to lay it in Bush's lap alone. Mr frank in the video from the site I posted said Fannie and Freddie were just fine, sound. Now look at them. He's a democrat. Ya know? The answer to your questions wouldn't, nor could they, be a huge factor in the next election. You can ignore Bush's attempts at reform if you like, that doesn't change the fact he attempted, and it seems much more than one time. These attempts may not excuse him from wrong doing, but it does shed some light on the fact that it wasn't his fault alone. Clinton, Bush, both made some bad decisions that could indirectly be partly to blame for this mess. Then, add business to this. Goldman Sachs etc. They had, Goldman Sachs, connections to them both, Clinton and Bush. The poloitical system has been compromised, it's corrupt. Top to bottom. Has little to do with voting. ;D

charger #48 · Apr 28, 2010 02:20 UTC

If Republicans were desperate to reform anything or regulate anything, they would have done it. Republicans have held majorities in Congress for all but about 4 years of the last 20. They are not interested in any kind of reform at all, just in getting more money for their cronies, and in getting reelected. As evidenced by the current state of affairs. Fact is reforming Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have done shit--Chase, and Wells Fargo, and Countrywide, etc. could still make all the exotic loans they wanted. And there wasn't a freaking WORD about derivative reform from the Republicans, as there still isn't. Bush had an agenda--let's not loan money to poor people. As if loaning money to poor people caused the economy to collapse. I have heard that an awful lot. Funny thing is, all those questionable loans earned a lot of fucking money for a lot of well-off, non-poor, non-minority people. A loan broker could make a loan and take a 1% commission without the person ever making a payment. It happened THOUSANDS of times. An unscrupulous hedge fund could then go an package that loan into a CDO--the riskier the better--for a few million dollars, then throw down the cash to purchase insurance on it for a hundred million dollars, essentially paying 10% down to get a 100% return when the CDO failed. Not a poor person, or Freddie or Fannie, anywhere NEAR that shit.

Yet you still insist it was some poor dude who caused all this?

Fucking rich white bankers collecting $2 million bonuses on massive failures, and a shitload of poor people left with nothing but higher taxes, and you blame the poor people? You don't understand the first thing about this crisis, and it's been in the news for over a year now non-stop. You still prefer your news slanted--no other way to put it. That site you posted, what a load of shit. That people believe it is truly incredible to me, especially with all the information that is now readily available.

Hookbender #49 · Apr 28, 2010 03:16 UTC

Charger, is that post to me?

Hookbender #50 · Apr 28, 2010 03:37 UTC

Well, if reform wouldn't have helped shit, why the fuck are you so pissed at Bush? What the fuck else could he have done or tried to do?

Poor dude. Shit. Got anything else to read into my post? ;D

Yeah, your right. I don't know a lot about all this crap. I don't pretend to either.

What I do know, from my personal opinion piece dated 4-27-10, is that Bush isn't solely to blame.

And people who do blame him or republicans alone for this mess, well, lets just say they are much worse off than the ignorance on the subject that I've admitted to and showed at times during this discussion.

1 2 3 4 5 Next ›