black magick at it's finest.

when's toto gonna pull back the curtain on the wizard of oz?

R.I.P. Paul Newman :-(

Who knows whom to believe anymore?

If this were not an election year, would there be such an urgency?
Or are both parties trying to woo Big Business over to "their side?"

I don't know. All I know is I'm afraid to open the envelopes that come monthly bearing the news of our retirement investments.
We both worked hard for our money. Why is it not there for us, but failed executives get rewarded with millions of dollars?

Why doesn't the failed Bush policies trickle down to the average American?

Why am I not rewarded because I played by the rules and did things the right way?

diane @ 6:

Who knows whom to believe anymore?

If this were not an election year, would there be such an urgency?
Or are both parties trying to woo Big Business over to "their side?"

I don't know. All I know is I'm afraid to open the envelopes that come monthly bearing the news of our retirement investments.
We both worked hard for our money. Why is it not there for us, but failed executives get rewarded with millions of dollars?

Why doesn't the failed Bush policies trickle down to the average American?

Why am I not rewarded because I played by the rules and did things the right way?

The trickle down ruse worked, problem only the Debt trickled down.

tranches, or troughs?

Bank Crisis 101 - The Simplest Explanation You Will Find

They try to hide what it is using fancy words like credit derivatives. Over and over again they tell you it is too complicated for the average person to understand. They are lying to you. You can easily understand this if you read these pieces together. They keep talking about mortgages but they are the smallest part of this entire "shitpile." It is a scam and the bushies have been waiting for months to unleash this "crisis" as an election issue.

killthefed @ 13:

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about economics going on it this country.

The Republicans think they can use the Federal Reserve to pump as much money into the economy for wars, military and other insane projects, without causing problems. But every new dollar makes your money worth less. Also Republicans are NOT for deregulation, they are just for using the power of the government to destroy the competition for their central bank and multinational corp owners.

Then the Democrats come along and say the answer to all our problems is 'MORE TAXES AND REGULATIONS'. Even though I believe that taxes are less damaging than runaway inflation, and an idea like universal health care is better than endless wars, the root cause of all the problems is GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, so more of that in any form is worse.

Democrats right now are preaching that Capitalism failed, even though all but the most stupid know that what we have had in this country for about 100 years is NOT Capitalism. We have had Democrat Socialism or Republican Fascism this whole time. This might be OK if every time one party takes over they focus on ending the excesses of the other party and expanding the benefits of their ideology, however what we always get is the WORST of both worlds.

It is actually to the point where both parties are indistinguishable because in the end the only people who benefit are big business, big pharma, big media and their puppet political class. The people always get screwed.

The Federal government has ONLY a few jobs, coin money, stand up an army only if we are invaded, AND the most important PROTECT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. THAT IS IT, everything else is damaging.

We always get the worst of both worlds? That's why you live in a country with one of the worst standards of living in the world?

Bullshit.

I would be willing to bet that you've never lived in a country that the WORST of anything, in terms of goverment.

Alice X - (Click Here for Nader Debate What If) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 9:

Amy Goodman's latest on the bailout swindle.

Here.

At least she seems to be calling it what it is... I am getting tired of trying to get people to realize what kindof bullshit this whole thing is. The whole thing is a scam. These companies literally gambled with massive sums of money and now they want citizens to pay off their gambling debts.

What people in western European social democracies understand, that many Americans don't, is that THEY are the government. And they're much better at letting the government know for whom they actually work, on a regular basis. Of course, they also often have much better mechanisms for removing those in government who aren't performing satisfactorily.

But they are social democracies, and not some false illusion of Libertarian "utopia." They have to pay a lot of taxes. :)

killthefed @ 17:

Korry @ 14:

killthefed @ 13:

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about economics going on it this country.

The Republicans think they can use the Federal Reserve to pump as much money into the economy for wars, military and other insane projects, without causing problems. But every new dollar makes your money worth less. Also Republicans are NOT for deregulation, they are just for using the power of the government to destroy the competition for their central bank and multinational corp owners.

Then the Democrats come along and say the answer to all our problems is 'MORE TAXES AND REGULATIONS'. Even though I believe that taxes are less damaging than runaway inflation, and an idea like universal health care is better than endless wars, the root cause of all the problems is GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, so more of that in any form is worse.

Democrats right now are preaching that Capitalism failed, even though all but the most stupid know that what we have had in this country for about 100 years is NOT Capitalism. We have had Democrat Socialism or Republican Fascism this whole time. This might be OK if every time one party takes over they focus on ending the excesses of the other party and expanding the benefits of their ideology, however what we always get is the WORST of both worlds.

It is actually to the point where both parties are indistinguishable because in the end the only people who benefit are big business, big pharma, big media and their puppet political class. The people always get screwed.

The Federal government has ONLY a few jobs, coin money, stand up an army only if we are invaded, AND the most important PROTECT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. THAT IS IT, everything else is damaging.

We always get the worst of both worlds? That's why you live in a country with one of the worst standards of living in the world?

Bullshit.

I would be willing to bet that you've never lived in a country that the WORST of anything, in terms of goverment.

I have lived in other countries that were better in some ways and worse in others. But that is a retarded argument. Just because you can find some place that is worse, doesn't mean you accept everything without trying to make it better.

THE POINT is that government is not the answer, it IS the problem. WAKE UP before it is too late.

Wake up and do what, exactly? Vote for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr? Or maybe Ron Paul?

LMFAO

Of course there is plenty of money. What are the very wealthy, the upper five percent, going to do with their billions? They can't stuff it under their mattresses. They must invest it.

we are in a place right now that is like the scene in "batman: the dark knight" where the hostages are in the 2 boats, and the joker figures one side will kill the other.

dems vs. repubs.

will we figure out we are ALL being gamed by the jokers running the "federal" "reserve"?

Korry @ 23:

Required @ 19:

Trouble is, everyone, especially the American people, know the whole thing is bullshit.

That's not true. Polls show that the majority of Americans think something should be done, by the government. They just don't like the price tag.

It's not the price tag that bothers US .. it's the fact that the Bankers want US to pay that price tag.

I have NO objection to the government getting involved, placing the banks in receivership, freezing the accounts of their CEOs, and MANDATING a solution using the BANKERS MONEY.

It's not the price tag, it's who's gonna pay it!

Korry @ 20:

killthefed @ 17:

Korry @ 14:

killthefed @ 13:

We always get the worst of both worlds? That's why you live in a country with one of the worst standards of living in the world?

Bullshit.

I would be willing to bet that you've never lived in a country that the WORST of anything, in terms of goverment.

I have lived in other countries that were better in some ways and worse in others. But that is a retarded argument. Just because you can find some place that is worse, doesn't mean you accept everything without trying to make it better.

THE POINT is that government is not the answer, it IS the problem. WAKE UP before it is too late.

Wake up and do what, exactly? Vote for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr? Or maybe Ron Paul?

LMFAO

Any one of them, including Kucinich is FAR better than McCain or Obama or any of the other Dem/Rep that were running.

But the system is rigged so voting isn't the answer. It is telling how you think the only thing you can do is pick some government official. When I say wake up I mean REALIZE the government is NOT the answer. The ONLY thing the government should be doing is prosecuting all the criminals for fraud, starting wars, and infringing on our civil rights, other than that they should refrain from doing anything.

Korry @ 23:

Required @ 19:

Trouble is, everyone, especially the American people, know the whole thing is bullshit.

That's not true. Polls show that the majority of Americans think something should be done, by the government. They just don't like the price tag.

Have you seen one newscaster even try to explain it to the people? Over and over again they say "It is too complicated!" BS! It isn't that complicated and if Joe and Suzy Sixpack were explained it properly they would be freakin' furious.

Speaking of finances and taxes and the like...

I do like the solution that some large rural communities in the USA have developed.

If you don't like paying taxes - you don't have to do so!

For example: If you don't like paying for the tax that pays for the fire department service, you don't pay!

If your house catches fire, the fire department still shows up.

They prevent adjecent properties from catching fire and watch your house burn down!

You take the time to dispose of your own trash as per local codes - on your own time!

In that way, the people who want to whine about paying their bills - can just stop paying AND whining.

What happened to the days when ordinary savers used to keep banks afloat and the economy humming? "It's a Wonderful Life" had the true story on how America became great. Back then the term "savings and loan" really meant something. Now they give diligent people looking for cash safety a paltry 1% return while loaning out that same money to someone with a credit card with a whopping 18.5% interest rate.

The alternative is to get those with a little extra cash herded into a money market fund, some sort of time dependent CD situation, or buying bonds or stocks that are inflated due the gaming of the system to make them the most "profitable" investment. The advent of 401K plans and the continuous infusion of cash week in and week out that causes constant churning to create false value. Billion of shares change hands every trading day. The beauty of the system is that the brokers take a cut right off of the top of every transaction, whether the investor makes money or not. The grandadady deals are the LBO's etc. where huge amounts of cash is absconded for simply arranging financing, again whether the deal is successful or not. What a racket.

Add to it the oil companies taking their huge cut off of the top, the Fed taking a cut of every dollar printed (and charging interest on it to boot), and the government wasting money like its worthless, it is enough to make one want to go back to nature, but that is fouled up by other types of greedy sorts.

Did you ever wonder whay capital and capitol are so close so as to cause confusion between the two? The answer lies (literally) at the doorstep of the treasury which has been overrun with dollar destroying demons.

I think the credit default swaps market is the real threat, that the hedge funds, banks and brokerages holding $5 TRILLION in CDS obligation are looking to the taxpayer to buy the underlying paper.

Then we're really f**ked

Chris @ 36:

I think the credit default swaps market is the real threat, that the hedge funds, banks and brokerages holding $5 TRILLION in CDS obligation are looking to the taxpayer to buy the underlying paper.

Then we're really f**ked

Toxic Paper no one wants to get near.

Who in their right mind would want to invest in worthless paper?

killthefed @ 39:

The first hundred years of this country was very low government intervention and it was the greatest economic boom in history. Just imagine how much prosperity this country would have if we went back to that level of government interference.

Also when you say 'BY THE PEOPLE' who are you kidding. NO government is 'by the people', they are all controlled 'by the central bankers' or 'by dictators'.

The greatest economic boom of the United States was the Clinton Administration.

SWALLOW IT

SInce this is the taxpayer' money we are talking about, why not make the degree of government protection (bailout) a given company can receive contingent on its performance as a taxpayer in recent years? Companies that have been paying little or no taxes after giving huge bonuses to their CEOs should receive less of a share from the 600 billion package than those firms that contributed a reasonable share of their profits back to society while they were still making money.

The function of government is the creation/maintenance of civil society and the protection of the common man and his interests - public commons - from predators; the greedy, corporatists, aristocracy etc. (OSHA, FDA, EPA, FEMA, GOLDMAN SACKS, etc etc)

I think it is almost time to handle this the way Stalin would have. If the crooks on Wall Street keep sitting on their cash so they can squeeze the last bit of blood out of the U.S. economy, we should start lining them up down below the NY Stock Exchange and put them in front of a firing squad. Summarily execute three or four executives a day until the remaining ones decide to do the right thing.

Give them the "compensation" they deserve!

Chris @ 47:

Sorry, that should be $65 Trillion

Hey, what's sixty trillion between friends?

So true. ;)

killthefed @ 39:

Korry @ 31:

killthefed @ 28:

Korry @ 20:

Any one of them, including Kucinich is FAR better than McCain or Obama or any of the other Dem/Rep that were running.

But the system is rigged so voting isn't the answer. It is telling how you think the only thing you can do is pick some government official. When I say wake up I mean REALIZE the government is NOT the answer. The ONLY thing the government should be doing is prosecuting all the criminals for fraud, starting wars, and infringing on our civil rights, other than that they should refrain from doing anything.

I just don't agree with you. I think the best examples of the best run countries are SOCIAL DEMOCRACIES. Socialism. A government that is truly BY THE PEOPLE.

I think they have the least volatile economies. And invariably, the most contented people.

The thing that kills me is that this country and our constitution is NOT based on socialism. If you like Socialism so much why do YOU move to Europe, instead of trying to screw up the US more. The first hundred years of this country was very low government intervention and it was the greatest economic boom in history. Just imagine how much prosperity this country would have if we went back to that level of government interference.

Also when you say 'BY THE PEOPLE' who are you kidding. NO government is 'by the people', they are all controlled 'by the central bankers' or 'by dictators'.

By the way, economic booms (nee: bubbles) are part of the problem.

A not so volatile economy is much better, in the long term, I think.

Rasputin @ 37:

killthefed @ 17:

Korry @ 14:

killthefed @ 13:

We always get the worst of both worlds? That's why you live in a country with one of the worst standards of living in the world?

Bullshit.

I would be willing to bet that you've never lived in a country that the WORST of anything, in terms of goverment.

I have lived in other countries that were better in some ways and worse in others. But that is a retarded argument. Just because you can find some place that is worse, doesn't mean you accept everything without trying to make it better.

THE POINT is that government is not the answer, it IS the problem. WAKE UP before it is too late.

We have been hearing this bullshit from the rethugs for over 25 years and the proof that it is a failed theory... is now a reality for the whole damn world to see.

"THE POINT is that government is not the answer, it IS the problem."
----Ronald Reagan's Ghost

The whole problem with your argument from the beginning is that the "subprime meltdown" at the heart of our current financial mess was caused by two factors...

1. Removal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 and Nullification of the States Predatroy lending laws by a law suit in Federal court initiated by Bush using an 1863 law and the Office of the Currency Comptroller in New York State.

2. No regulation or government intervention what so ever on the "Securitization" of the debt obligations and their sale on the international financial markets. there was absolutely no regulation what so ever of the hedge funds like Bear Stearns... Nada! Zipo!

Those international financial markets where the CDO's and SIV's were bundled and sold without any government oversight, regulation, or interventions at all... were a feeding frenzy of greed and stupidity.

They proved beyond a shadow of doubt that "free markets" don't self regulate and that they are a mythical fairyland like "Brigadoon" that has never existed except in the minds of small children, cloistered academics, and Libertarian Loonies!

I think you're my hero. :)

Korry, LA,

If you pull all of that paper out of the market, ,what does it do to the Dow? To Nasdaq?

To all the boomers looking to retire in the next 15 years, and begin living on their investments?

Have you seen any writing on what transpires should the 'sucker' indeed go down?

Chris

CampCall @ 51:

The issue began with the "Community Reinvestment Act", which requires financial institutions to maintain a lending profile consistent with federal demographic figures. When debated in 1977, only one banker (from Chicago) testified in favor of the bill. The FDIC, OCC, OTS, and FRB enforce these guidelines.

In 1995 the Clinton Administration increased focus on enforcing these regulations. Another part of the revision allowed Banks to "Securitize" these more risky loans. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.

In 2003, the Bush Administration tried to address the pressure put on banks, by moving supervision of Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to a new agency under the Dept. of the Treasury. Congress pushed back, led by Barney Frank (D-MA) and Mel Watt (D-NC).

Thus Fannie and Freddie continued under the supervision of congress. The accounting shenanigans that occured are well documented. The lending envelope was pushed to the limit. Enter $4.00/gallon gasoline, and those on the low end will begin to make hard choices based on how they will get to work, not maintaining their mortgage.

These are well documented facts. Google the "Community Reinvestment Act". B.H.Obama (or is it Barry Soetoro) is up to his neck in this, and if elected, he will be fighting the scandal for his entire term.

Bullshit! There is no way the mortgages alone would have caused a crisis of the current magnitude.

This is partisan "gotta blame Clinton" crap. The current crisis has been building for decades, and there's been a boom and bust cycle happening ever since.

The current magnitude of the current crisis is explained by this:

"The whole problem with your argument from the beginning is that the “subprime meltdown” at the heart of our current financial mess was caused by two factors…

1. Removal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 and Nullification of the States Predatroy lending laws by a law suit in Federal court initiated by Bush using an 1863 law and the Office of the Currency Comptroller in New York State.

2. No regulation or government intervention what so ever on the “Securitization” of the debt obligations and their sale on the international financial markets. there was absolutely no regulation what so ever of the hedge funds like Bear Stearns… Nada! Zipo!

Those international financial markets where the CDO’s and SIV’s were bundled and sold without any government oversight, regulation, or interventions at all… were a feeding frenzy of greed and stupidity.

They proved beyond a shadow of doubt that “free markets” don’t self regulate and that they are a mythical fairyland like “Brigadoon” that has never existed except in the minds of small children, cloistered academics, and Libertarian Loonies!"

Along with Phil Gramm's Commodities Futures Modernization Act.

I don't think any administration of the last 30 years is free of blame in this, but you certainly can't lay it at the feet of the Clinton administration, or the Community Reinvestment Act.

That's just bologna.

Chris @ 54:

Korry, LA,

If you pull all of that paper out of the market, ,what does it do to the Dow? To Nasdaq?

To all the boomers looking to retire in the next 15 years, and begin living on their investments?

Have you seen any writing on what transpires should the 'sucker' indeed go down?

Chris

No, I'm living in denial. I worked for Enron, and my 401K was toast some time ago, anyway. :)

CampCall

For your reading pleasure...

Foreclosure Phil

Excerpt:

Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure.

Gramm's long been a handmaiden to Big Finance. In the 1990s, as chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they audited—at one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms—setting off a wave of merger mania.

But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry—friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career—came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead—even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

And one more point... The

Repeal of the Glass Steagall Act

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[7] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[8]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

So don't go lying and trying to blame it on Clinton... the bill was veto proof under the rules of the GOP controlled congress!

We now see that the Bush/Rove Might Republican Machine has run out of gas by the side of the highway and its crew of rodents are fleeing into the nearby woods for protection.

Perfect

Korry @ 56:

CampCall @ 51:

The issue began with the "Community Reinvestment Act", which requires financial institutions to maintain a lending profile consistent with federal demographic figures. When debated in 1977, only one banker (from Chicago) testified in favor of the bill. The FDIC, OCC, OTS, and FRB enforce these guidelines.

In 1995 the Clinton Administration increased focus on enforcing these regulations. Another part of the revision allowed Banks to "Securitize" these more risky loans. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.

In 2003, the Bush Administration tried to address the pressure put on banks, by moving supervision of Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to a new agency under the Dept. of the Treasury. Congress pushed back, led by Barney Frank (D-MA) and Mel Watt (D-NC).

Thus Fannie and Freddie continued under the supervision of congress. The accounting shenanigans that occured are well documented. The lending envelope was pushed to the limit. Enter $4.00/gallon gasoline, and those on the low end will begin to make hard choices based on how they will get to work, not maintaining their mortgage.

These are well documented facts. Google the "Community Reinvestment Act". B.H.Obama (or is it Barry Soetoro) is up to his neck in this, and if elected, he will be fighting the scandal for his entire term.

Bullshit! There is no way the mortgages alone would have caused a crisis of the current magnitude.

This is partisan "gotta blame Clinton" crap. The current crisis has been building for decades, and there's been a boom and bust cycle happening ever since.

The current magnitude of the current crisis is explained by this:

"The whole problem with your argument from the beginning is that the “subprime meltdown” at the heart of our current financial mess was caused by two factors…

1. Removal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 and Nullification of the States Predatroy lending laws by a law suit in Federal court initiated by Bush using an 1863 law and the Office of the Currency Comptroller in New York State.

2. No regulation or government intervention what so ever on the “Securitization” of the debt obligations and their sale on the international financial markets. there was absolutely no regulation what so ever of the hedge funds like Bear Stearns… Nada! Zipo!

Those international financial markets where the CDO’s and SIV’s were bundled and sold without any government oversight, regulation, or interventions at all… were a feeding frenzy of greed and stupidity.

They proved beyond a shadow of doubt that “free markets” don’t self regulate and that they are a mythical fairyland like “Brigadoon” that has never existed except in the minds of small children, cloistered academics, and Libertarian Loonies!"

Along with Phil Gramm's Commodities Futures Modernization Act.

I don't think any administration of the last 30 years is free of blame in this, but you certainly can't lay it at the feet of the Clinton administration, or the Community Reinvestment Act.

That's just bologna.

The debts being sold in the "securities" were mortgages. The entity charged with oversight by law was congress. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was an attempt to expand "affordable housing" loans, enforced by the regulators that were established by Glass Steagall. The "predatory" lenders were the lawyers suing the banks for more a expansive reading of the Community Reinvestment Act.

The regulation was there, just not properly exercised. Do the math! I am not partisan. I just posted a verifiable timeline.

The 'bailout' is George W. Bush's invoice for America's rape kit.

CampCall @ 64:

Korry @ 56:

CampCall @ 51:

The issue began with the "Community Reinvestment Act", which requires financial institutions to maintain a lending profile consistent with federal demographic figures. When debated in 1977, only one banker (from Chicago) testified in favor of the bill. The FDIC, OCC, OTS, and FRB enforce these guidelines.

In 1995 the Clinton Administration increased focus on enforcing these regulations. Another part of the revision allowed Banks to "Securitize" these more risky loans. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.

In 2003, the Bush Administration tried to address the pressure put on banks, by moving supervision of Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to a new agency under the Dept. of the Treasury. Congress pushed back, led by Barney Frank (D-MA) and Mel Watt (D-NC).

Thus Fannie and Freddie continued under the supervision of congress. The accounting shenanigans that occured are well documented. The lending envelope was pushed to the limit. Enter $4.00/gallon gasoline, and those on the low end will begin to make hard choices based on how they will get to work, not maintaining their mortgage.

These are well documented facts. Google the "Community Reinvestment Act". B.H.Obama (or is it Barry Soetoro) is up to his neck in this, and if elected, he will be fighting the scandal for his entire term.

Bullshit! There is no way the mortgages alone would have caused a crisis of the current magnitude.

This is partisan "gotta blame Clinton" crap. The current crisis has been building for decades, and there's been a boom and bust cycle happening ever since.

The current magnitude of the current crisis is explained by this:

"The whole problem with your argument from the beginning is that the “subprime meltdown” at the heart of our current financial mess was caused by two factors…

1. Removal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 and Nullification of the States Predatroy lending laws by a law suit in Federal court initiated by Bush using an 1863 law and the Office of the Currency Comptroller in New York State.

2. No regulation or government intervention what so ever on the “Securitization” of the debt obligations and their sale on the international financial markets. there was absolutely no regulation what so ever of the hedge funds like Bear Stearns… Nada! Zipo!

Those international financial markets where the CDO’s and SIV’s were bundled and sold without any government oversight, regulation, or interventions at all… were a feeding frenzy of greed and stupidity.

They proved beyond a shadow of doubt that “free markets” don’t self regulate and that they are a mythical fairyland like “Brigadoon” that has never existed except in the minds of small children, cloistered academics, and Libertarian Loonies!"

Along with Phil Gramm's Commodities Futures Modernization Act.

I don't think any administration of the last 30 years is free of blame in this, but you certainly can't lay it at the feet of the Clinton administration, or the Community Reinvestment Act.

That's just bologna.

The debts being sold in the "securities" were mortgages. The entity charged with oversight by law was congress. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was an attempt to expand "affordable housing" loans, enforced by the regulators that were established by Glass Steagall. The "predatory" lenders were the lawyers suing the banks for more a expansive reading of the Community Reinvestment Act.

The regulation was there, just not properly exercised. Do the math! I am not partisan. I just posted a verifiable timeline.

You're just flat out wrong.

What's causing the current crisis is credit market derivatives. It's NOT just the mortgage backed ones.

And the reason they are such a problem is that they are not transparent, not openly traded (and thus openly market valued) as stocks are, and not regulated.

And the reason they are not, is the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, and the passing of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. Both accomplished by Phil Gramm. You know....the one who thinks America is a nation of whiners.

You're just wrong, wrong, wrong about what's really causing the current crisis, of such potential magnitude.

Wake up to the rattle of PPH guns perhaps?

We have at present no commander at the top or in the upper houses of government. Our process must start again in building local support for new ideas and processes of doing business in a global economy and world where the nation state is yet a necessary but obsolete form. The Nader and Paul candidates are but the van of what will have to be a local effort and a sustained process of replacing the Democrat/Republican lock on a nation that was founded in the naive assumption that people not political parties would helm the nation.

Our local municipalities are held in tighter fashion than under Stalin's Soviet Union.
Our money is fake and printed by a junta of private bankers
Our economy is papers transferring hands, people flipping burgers, and us suing each other

We sit by this election laughing at the horse race. The troubles are deeper. We are in it together.
Korry @ 20:

killthefed @ 17:

Korry @ 14:

killthefed @ 13:

We always get the worst of both worlds? That's why you live in a country with one of the worst standards of living in the world?

Bullshit.

I would be willing to bet that you've never lived in a country that the WORST of anything, in terms of goverment.

I have lived in other countries that were better in some ways and worse in others. But that is a retarded argument. Just because you can find some place that is worse, doesn't mean you accept everything without trying to make it better.

THE POINT is that government is not the answer, it IS the problem. WAKE UP before it is too late.

Wake up and do what, exactly? Vote for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr? Or maybe Ron Paul?

LMFAO

CampCall @ 69:

Credit market Dirivatives are securities to hedge risk. Fannie and Freddie only dealt in Mortgages, try again...

And an item for Rasputin...

Billionaire Penny Pritzker helped run Hinsdale, Ill.-based Superior, overseeing her family's 50% ownership stake. She now serves as Barack Obama's national campaign-finance chairwoman, which means her banking past could prove to be an embarrassment to her -- and perhaps to the campaign.

Superior was seized in 2001 and later closed by federal regulators. Government investigators and consumer advocates have contended that Superior engaged in unsound financial activities and predatory lending practices. Ms. Pritzker, a longtime friend and supporter of Sen. Obama, served for a time as Superior's chairman, and later sat on the board of its holding company.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121660089138069207-lMyQjAxMDI4MTI2NzYyMDcwWj.html

You try again, dumbass:

Loss in derivatives hits Freddie Mac

Published: FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 2005

Freddie Mac, the U.S. mortgage company, said Thursday that 2004 profit fell 42 percent as the value of financial contracts used to protect against swings in interest rates declined.

Net income fell to $2.8 billion, or $3.78 a share, from $4.9 billion, or $6.79 a share, in 2003, according to Michael Cosgrove, a company spokesman. The current, or fair, market value of the government-chartered company's assets minus liabilities rose 13 percent to $30.8 billion, less than the 20 percent jump in 2003.

The earnings report is just the second for Freddie Mac since an internal investigation found it understated net income by $5 billion from 2000 through 2002, leading to an overhaul of the company's accounting that is still under way. Some investors said that they were ready to hear from the company's chief executive, Richard Syron, on how he planned to move the company beyond accounting mistakes.

"They need to assure all those concerned that they know what they are earning by filing reports, and then how they can grow," James McGlynn of Summit Investment Partners in Cincinnati said before the release.

Net income fell below the projections of analysts including Credit Suisse First Boston's Moshe Orenbuch, who estimated it would be between $4 and $5 a share in 2004.

Today in Business with Reuters
Leaders seek to revive bailout dealArmageddon still loomsBritish banks reportedly seek bailout
Freddie Mac had a $4.5 billion loss on derivatives used to protect its mortgage assets. The loss compared with gains of $39 million in 2003 and $5.3 billion in 2002. Derivatives are contracts whose value is derived from debt or equity securities, commodities or currencies.

Freddie Mac and the larger Fannie Mae were chartered by Congress to make money more widely available for home loans. They profit by purchasing loans and mortgage securities for their investment portfolios, and from fees charged to lenders for guaranteeing credit on loans packaged into mortgage bonds.

CampCall @ 64:

The debts being sold in the "securities" were mortgages. The entity charged with oversight by law was congress. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was an attempt to expand "affordable housing" loans, enforced by the regulators that were established by Glass Steagall. The "predatory" lenders were the lawyers suing the banks for more a expansive reading of the Community Reinvestment Act.

The regulation was there, just not properly exercised. Do the math! I am not partisan. I just posted a verifiable timeline.

You evidently need a math book then... lets start eh?

"The debts being sold in the "securities" were mortgages. The entity charged with oversight by law was congress."

Wrong... All securities are regulated by the SEC... whether they are mortgages is irrelevant once they become "securitized." The exception though was the hedge funds on the international exchanges... which were not regulated by anyone... no government... no central bank... a virtual financial "no man's land"

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (commonly known as the SEC) is an independent agency of the United States government which holds primary responsibility for enforcing the federal securities laws and regulating the securities industry, the nation's stock and options exchanges, and other electronic securities markets. The SEC was created by section 4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (now codified as 15 U.S.C. § 78d and commonly referred to as the 1934 Act). In addition to the 1934 Act that created it, the SEC enforces the Securities Act of 1933, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and other statutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_and_Exchange_Commission

Mortgages are not regulated by congress... but by Federal and State Agencies

"Gramm-Leach-Bliley was an attempt to expand “affordable housing” loans, enforced by the regulators that were established by Glass Steagall."

The Glass Steagll Act had nothing to do with regulators... it simply said that a Bank could be a Savings Bank or a Brokerage... but not both! It was a "firewall" to prevent savings banks from assuming to much risk by issuing mortgages and securities and putting their depositors funds at risk... as well as fraud.

Congressional Research Service Summary:

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, bankers and brokers were sometimes indistinguishable. Then, in the Great Depression after 1929, Congress examined the mixing of the “commercial” and “investment” banking industries that occurred in the 1920s. Hearings revealed conflicts of interest and fraud in some banking institutions’ securities activities. A formidable barrier to the mixing of these activities was then set up by the Glass Steagall Act.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is a United States government corporation created by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. It provides deposit insurance which guarantees the safety of checking and savings deposits in member banks, currently up to $100,000 per depositor per bank.

And the SEC is immune to congressional pressure??? I will return you to the core, original transaction that required the securities, and without which there would be no risk to distribute / hedge.

And another Obama Connection to the mess, much higher in one of the errant organizations, and much closer to the candidate!
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/06/03/2078/obama_turns_to_trusted_p...

CampCall @ 73:

OK! let me explain...

Businesses do something of value to generate value. In this case, guarantee mortgages. The risk involved in a mortgage is that the mortgagee will not repay. When case factors that may indicate a prospective mortgagees repayment ability are reduced, risk goes up. Add a highly competitive market and return for accepting that risk drops. Add government pressure to do so, and the government takes that responsibility.

Stocks are a way of distributing ownership. That distributes the risk, and pays the stockholder either in stock value, or dividends, or both. Market derivatives, such as calls, or puts, hedge the risk by assuring availability of ability to repay at a fixed price. All of this risk hedging and distributing are because the mortgagee may not pay. Hense... $4.00/gallon gas + falling home prices + high risk borrowers = Ooops...

So, either identify a different original transaction, or accept that risky mortgages pushed on bankers by Barney Frank (D-MA) and Mel Watt (D-NC), ACORN, and Barack Obama.

You are so full of shit!

Economics is not your strong suit... start here before you hurt yourself

PBS NewsHour 20070830 Subprime Primer 1of2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6jWvOHYeJc

Rogoff is dead on when he says that there is plenty of money waiting in the wings, but many may never really understand why those funds a being held back. Presently, there is $14 trillion sitting in a set aside account at Citibank awaiting release and this fact was briefly mentioned by Bernanke when he testified in front of the Senate banking committee earlier this week. However the issue was dropped, there was no follow through. We can thank the Queen of England and the Chinese for their generous donations with strings. Get rid of the Federal Reserve.
Fact: during the last G-8 meeting in Germany I believe last March a date certain was set for the full implementation of the Basil II accords. That date being August the 29th just past. Elements within our own government fought this move tooth and nail and when that date passed, the US was given a 30 day extension which is up at 12:00 midnight this Tuesday.
What does this mean? If all US banks that did business with other banks around the world were not compliant meaning that all transactions were transparent and taxable, they would be precluded from doing any business with the rest of the world. The reason for the blow up at the White House? Members of the G-8 threatened to dump all of their T-bills as of the opening of the Asian markets Sunday evening which is the real reason why politicians were running around as if their heads were exploding along with Paulson and Bernanke stating that a bailout had to be in place prior to the Asian opening.
The fix is in place and the bottom line to all of this is that the US will survive and for the time being, the boy King will be allowed to take the credit for saving the entire world form financial ruin. The best part of the deal is the the Federal Reserve which has been an albatrose around the necks of us all for nearly 100 years will eventually disappear and be replaced by a new treasury banking system with dollars backed by real assets such as precious metals.
While in metaphor form, you can read all about it at www. worldreports .org Eveything else you are going to hear over the next few days is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Andrew @ 79:

Rogoff is dead on when he says that there is plenty of money waiting in the wings, but many may never really understand why those funds a being held back. Presently, there is $14 trillion sitting in a set aside account at Citibank awaiting release and this fact was briefly mentioned by Bernanke when he testified in front of the Senate banking committee earlier this week. However the issue was dropped, there was no follow through. We can thank the Queen of England and the Chinese for their generous donations with strings. Get rid of the Federal Reserve.
Fact: during the last G-8 meeting in Germany I believe last March a date certain was set for the full implementation of the Basil II accords. That date being August the 29th just past. Elements within our own government fought this move tooth and nail and when that date passed, the US was given a 30 day extension which is up at 12:00 midnight this Tuesday.
What does this mean? If all US banks that did business with other banks around the world were not compliant meaning that all transactions were transparent and taxable, they would be precluded from doing any business with the rest of the world. The reason for the blow up at the White House? Members of the G-8 threatened to dump all of their T-bills as of the opening of the Asian markets Sunday evening which is the real reason why politicians were running around as if their heads were exploding along with Paulson and Bernanke stating that a bailout had to be in place prior to the Asian opening.
The fix is in place and the bottom line to all of this is that the US will survive and for the time being, the boy King will be allowed to take the credit for saving the entire world form financial ruin. The best part of the deal is the the Federal Reserve which has been an albatrose around the necks of us all for nearly 100 years will eventually disappear and be replaced by a new treasury banking system with dollars backed by real assets such as precious metals.
While in metaphor form, you can read all about it at www. worldreports .org Eveything else you are going to hear over the next few days is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Wow....thanks, Andrew. A light just came on. This is the first thing I've read in a week that makes TOTAL sense.

Don't miss SNL tonight. Tina is at it again and she's a hoot!

Andrew @ 80:

Rogoff is dead on when he says that there is plenty of money waiting in the wings, but many may never really understand why those funds a being held back. Presently, there is $14 trillion sitting in a set aside account at Citibank awaiting release and this fact was briefly mentioned by Bernanke when he testified in front of the Senate banking committee earlier this week. However the issue was dropped, there was no follow through. We can thank the Queen of England and the Chinese for their generous donations with strings. Get rid of the Federal Reserve.
Fact: during the last G-8 meeting in Germany I believe last March a date certain was set for the full implementation of the Basil II accords. That date being August the 29th just past. Elements within our own government fought this move tooth and nail and when that date passed, the US was given a 30 day extension which is up at 12:00 midnight this Tuesday.
What does this mean? If all US banks that did business with other banks around the world were not compliant meaning that all transactions were transparent and taxable, they would be precluded from doing any business with the rest of the world. The reason for the blow up at the White House? Members of the G-8 threatened to dump all of their T-bills as of the opening of the Asian markets Sunday evening which is the real reason why politicians were running around as if their heads were exploding along with Paulson and Bernanke stating that a bailout had to be in place prior to the Asian opening.
The fix is in place and the bottom line to all of this is that the US will survive and for the time being, the boy King will be allowed to take the credit for saving the entire world form financial ruin. The best part of the deal is the the Federal Reserve which has been an albatrose around the necks of us all for nearly 100 years will eventually disappear and be replaced by a new treasury banking system with dollars backed by real assets such as precious metals.
While in metaphor form, you can read all about it at www. worldreports .org Eveything else you are going to hear over the next few days is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Do you have any links to verifiable sources regarding the G-8 and the Basil II accords?

Money doesn't and didn't evapourate: the rich have tightened their purse strings because they want bigger, and more secure (risk free) profits. (Taxpayer) Money has been flowing from the government for 8 years, to the tune of $5 trillion extra, and partly in the form of tax cuts. Now the junkies need a bigger fix. It's like invading Iran for another big fix of oil. Once proud, now a nation of junkies.

it's clear that the managers have realized they're up against a phenomenon, erred in their strategic and tactical endeavors, are staring down the barrels of their phenom opponent's LANDSLIDE victory and have concluded that bankrupting the treasury in order to prevent the developmental implementation of successful health care, education, infrastructure and energy plans, thus, designating his presidency as "lame-ducked" was the only plausible option in order to secure and maintain their ultimate control, hence: "MASTER PLAN."

But then again, getting it done quickly could be a bargaining chip for our side if we insist on things like economists who have been warning about this for years. The deal is, those people be put into the drivers seat now. Then, they stay there until next year. Sure, we'll have a conservative sitting next to them trying to read a roadmap. But if they want it sooner? Get it while we're open to negotiation. If they don't get up and work with us quickly the Democrats better have a good plan B. I think it's too expensive to get that far out of hand. Things need to happen in a relatively quick fashion.

Thinking about people who’ve been calling the shots, like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, I googled Robert Shiller who wrote "Irrational Exhuberance" that forcast the burst of the dotcom bubble. He came out with a new edition a few years ago updating about something didn’t look good in the housing market. He's written a book earlier this year, The Subprime Solution, considering the coming crisis. At the time he was also talking about bailouts or a 30% drop in the housing market...

Yet he also talked about ideas like variable mortgages that automatically align enough with the ebb and flow of markets. The idea is to try and make them bust-proof. And how things can be managed better simply with accurate pricing and the more sophisticated ways we have to track value today.

I found this interview from May of this year. He seems like a personable enough guy and it was a good read. He'd also been talking to his Senator, Chris Dodd at the time.

He and others demonstrated foresight on the matter. The people who saw this coming better be consulting everyone on how to try and get us out of it. This is what the Dems ultimately need to drive hard for now and in the upcoming months. Everybody get out of the way.

I'd think we also want to be careful that this doesn't go too long if we're not making significant progress. Shiller also said this week he's worried about not getting it done in a timely manner. He has stated that he was encouraged that when this happened, the government was ready to make dramatic changes. I believe this is much costlier than he ever expected though. Hopefully some people have had something better than a back of the napkin solution considered. To make up for the many who wouldn't even consider the possibility.

That is a load of phooey and does not explain how we arrived to this moment. To a large degree it is credit that caused this problem. When Bush took office the national debt was under 6 trillion, it is now at 11.315 trillion if the bailout goes through. We have expanded 4.5 trillion in debt in 8 years. The housing bubble is just a nail in the coffin.

Screw the budget deficit, it's a joke in comparison to the national debt. Also there are the baby boomers who caused the recession in the 70's when they enteredt the workforce, they are going to cause a crash as they retire. All their retirement is in that sinking ship called the stock market mutual fund 401k bombs away. What happened when there is a panic to save their retirement and more sellers than buyers. Don't forget they have to atke payment by law starting 2016, the ERISA act of 74, the government wants it's tax dollars.

We were warned for 30 years about this, we were warned about leaving the gold standard instead of fixing it, we were warned about the industrial military complex, and we were warned about that private unconstitutional corp called the FED which is not a reserve and who's largest holder is JPMorgan Chase. JPMorgan Chase is the FED for all intents and purposes. The world is now getting ready to move away from the dollar, what DC does matters little

Marc Faber lays down the reality
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-3PALhsZ3Y

Does this smell right?.... Republican deregulations of our financial systems created a necessity for a $700 Billion US taxpayer assistance check for Wall St.....

(Clark County, Nev.) Republican GOP official fired for remarks

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- The spokeswoman for the Republican Party in Nevada's most populous county was fired Saturday, after she said the Democratic Party made black people "dependent on the government."

snip

"We don't want (Hispanics) to become the new African-American community," Lima told The Associated Press. "And that's what the Democratic Party is going to do to them, create more programs and give them handouts, food stamps and checks for this and checks for that. We don't want that."

"I'm very much afraid that the Democratic Party is going to do the same thing that they did with the African-American culture and make them all dependent on the government and we don't want that," she said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/27/politics/p17...

"because the problem was there before anyone talked of a bailout"

PUBLIC talk of a bailout yes. But you have absolutely no idea what-so-ever what kind of talks there were of a bailout in private between members of the administration/Congress/SEC/Treasury before the problem was manifested. Do you? Please try and remember that there were many high level talks of invading Iraq for years before anything was ever said in public to that effect. These guys don't just take advantage of shocks, they create shocks to take advantage of.

CallCamp...

Besides getting your name backwards you've (in typical wingnut liar form) left out the big details that really matter on the causes of this financial disaster...

Here is an accurate time line...

1933 Glass-Steagall Act creates new banking landscape

Following the Great Crash of 1929, one of every five banks in America fails. Many people, especially politicians, see market speculation engaged in by banks during the 1920s as a cause of the crash.

In 1933, Senator Carter Glass (D-Va.) and Congressman Henry Steagall (D-Ala.) introduce the historic legislation that bears their name, seeking to limit the conflicts of interest created when commercial banks are permitted to underwrite stocks or bonds. In the early part of the century, individual investors were seriously hurt by banks whose overriding interest was promoting stocks of interest and benefit to the banks, rather than to individual investors.

The new law bans commercial banks from underwriting securities, forcing banks to choose between being a simple lender or an underwriter (brokerage). The act also establishes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), insuring bank deposits, and strengthens the Federal Reserve's control over credit.

1960s-70s First efforts to loosen Glass-Steagall restrictions

Beginning in the 1960s, banks lobby Congress to allow them to enter the municipal bond market, and a lobbying subculture springs up around Glass-Steagall. Some lobbyists even brag about how the bill put their kids through college.

1986-87 Fed begins reinterpreting Glass-Steagall; Greenspan becomes Fed chairman

In December 1986, the Federal Reserve Board, which has regulatory jurisdiction over banking, reinterprets Section 20 of the Glass-Steagall Act, which bars commercial banks from being "engaged principally" in securities business, deciding that banks can have up to 5 percent of gross revenues from investment banking business.

1980s-90s Congress repeatedly tries and fails to repeal Glass-Steagall

In 1984 and 1988, the Senate passes bills that would lift major restrictions under Glass-Steagall, but in each case the House blocks passage. In 1991, the Bush administration puts forward a repeal proposal, winning support of both the House and Senate Banking Committees, but the House again defeats the bill in a full vote

1996-1997 Fed renders Glass-Steagall effectively obsolete

In December 1996, with the support of Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board issues a precedent-shattering decision permitting bank holding companies to own investment bank affiliates with up to 25 percent of their business in securities underwriting (up from 10 percent).
1998-1999

Oct.-Nov. 1999 Congress passes Financial Services Modernization Act

After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.

On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

Repeal of the Glass Steagall Act - Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[7] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[8]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

2003 Bush Nullifies States Predatory Lending Law by Invoking 1863 Law

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR200802...

Stick to playing with your truck and quit trying to skew the facts... economics is not your field!

Look...

I have a life. I need to take a break to live it. If you are here when I get back, the lesson can continue.

Mick Piobr @ 32:

Speaking of finances and taxes and the like...

I do like the solution that some large rural communities in the USA have developed.

If you don't like paying taxes - you don't have to do so!

For example: If you don't like paying for the tax that pays for the fire department service, you don't pay!

If your house catches fire, the fire department still shows up.

They prevent adjecent properties from catching fire and watch your house burn down!

You take the time to dispose of your own trash as per local codes - on your own time!

In that way, the people who want to whine about paying their bills - can just stop paying AND whining.

you dont pay taxes to the gov large or small, they will lien, fine, and ultimately send the 'boys' round with guns drawn to extract their money.

Anyone that understands economics in reality and is not just a shill for the government or their friends who WANT the bailout- will understand that this bailout is not only unnecessary- it is extremely harmful to all americans. A "Democrat" version of the bailout is just as big of a spectacular failure that a republican version would be. Why? BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE $700 BILLION. This is going to lead to the further destruction of the US dollar and a bigger economic crisis in this country than we have seen before.

Whoever said that free-markets cause the business cycle has no idea what he's talking about- especially since there is no free-market in this country- how can you blame the economic problems we have on it? The federal reserve creates the booms and busts- you can ignore monetary policy all you want but its still a problem. When the fed lowers the interests rates and injects all this cheap money into the system- that's how the booms are created- the subsequent busts are necessary to purge all the malinvestment and fake economic growth.

We have mountains of regulation already- and you think that somehow more regulation is the magic answer? The US is MUCH more socialist than free-market with a central bank, taxes, safety nets, and all other sorts of programs that sound morally nice- but in reality are destructive and have lead us to the situation today. Socialism or even "Social democracy" is not a government "Run by the people"- it is run by the tyranny of the majority- with restrictions on freedom of all kinds.

Sorry but I just have to make an itsy-bitsy nitpicky point on your analogy, Cernig. I think you may have actually meant 'Skinnerian conditioning' and not 'Pavolvian conditioning'.

In Skinnerian (operant) conditioning, the probability of a behavior occurring is determined by its consequences. Hence the argument that the likelihood of banks withholding lending increases (thus creating the credit crunch) when they perceive it's likely they'll be rewarded with a favorable bailout by the Fed.

The hallmark of Pavlovian (classical) conditioning is that reflexive behavior can be trained to occur in response to previously neutral environmental antecedents. So if (for a silly example) the Fed chairman let out a loud belch every time he was about to lower interest rates, you'd see day traders rush to buy stocks any time Bernanke ate a bowl of three-alarm Texas chili.

Yes @ 107:

The whole problem with your argument from the beginning is that the “subprime meltdown” at the heart of our current financial mess was caused by two factors…

1. Removal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 and Nullification of the States Predatroy lending laws by a law suit in Federal court initiated by Bush using an 1863 law and the Office of the Currency Comptroller in New York State.

2. No regulation or government intervention what so ever on the “Securitization” of the debt obligations and their sale on the international financial markets. there was absolutely no regulation what so ever of the hedge funds like Bear Stearns… Nada! Zipo!

Those international financial markets where the CDO’s and SIV’s were bundled and sold without any government oversight, regulation, or interventions at all… were a feeding frenzy of greed and stupidity.

They proved beyond a shadow of doubt that “free markets” don’t self regulate

Ok so you agree that there is no free-market in the country- and then somehow champion the idea that our current crisis is "proof" that free-markets don't self regulate? How does that make sense? The recession IS the proof that free-markets self regulate- as the recession is needed to purge the malinvestments that were created WHEN THE FEDERAL RESERVE LOWERED INTEREST RATES. Why is that fact completely ignored? You do know that it would've been impossible for this bubble to even begin if the Fed kept out of the way back in 2001 and let THAT recession run its full course. Instead people like you advocated that the government needed to step in and spend money that they absolutely do not have- that's how this actually happened. You don't think Fannie and Freddie's implicit guarantee on every mortgage didn't create a moral hazard where market discipline was thrown out the window? Home prices NEED to come down, but people like you are advocating keeping homes too expensive for people to buy them by supporting these bills- and forcing them to take huge mortages that are much higher than the cost of their home.

Saying "We need regulation!" Is not a solution- does not address any of the fundamental problems we have(We have a completely faulty economic system, based on John Meynard Keynes's ideas such as the idea that Borrowing and consumption drives an economy, not savings and production. Which has led to ideas like gov't stimulus checks earlier this year). I would be more than happy to educate anyone who believes that free-markets caused this problem as to why in reality, it has been socialism and CONSTANT government intervention into the markets that has led to this debacle.

These problems began because congress spends too much money- and now the solution is of course, lets spend more money! Our economic problems will continue because of this mentality- even if this entire country became officially socialist- that not only would've solve anything, but it would also ruin our standards of living even further. Every single time government intervention and socialism fails- they somehow find a way to blame it on private individuals and the idea that humans are "naturally" led by greed and that only the benevolent people at washington can save us. I don't see how people on C&L who are pro-freedom can possibily suppot this bill or somehow think that the Republicans in congress or in the whitehouse are SOMEHOW FREE-MARKET!! That's the biggest joke of all time- they are less free-market than Karl Marx himself.

Bullshit!

It was the removal of those regulations that allowed the feeding frenzy by Wall Street to get entirely out of hand... both with making loans and the banks assuming too much risk and then the international financial markets and the hedge funds like Bear Stearns that had no regulations at all!

Watch this... you might learn something

PBS NewsHour 20070830 Subprime Primer 1of2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6jWvOHYeJc

Saying "We need regulation!" Is not a solution- does not address any of the fundamental problems we have(We have a completely faulty economic system, based on John Meynard Keynes's ideas such as the idea that Borrowing and consumption drives an economy, not savings and production. Which has led to ideas like gov't stimulus checks earlier this year). I would be more than happy to educate anyone who believes that free-markets caused this problem as to why in reality, it has been socialism and CONSTANT government intervention into the markets that has led to this debacle.

This is utter bullshit... For 25 years you have had Militon Friedman's philosophy dominant in this country starting with Reagan's "The government if the problem" and "deregulation is the answer" crap, as well as his "supply side" and "Trickle Down" theory in action .

The Fed's monetary policy is very definitely part of the problem and the "bubbles" created by dumping "cheap cash" on to the market starting with Greenspan's tenure as Fed Chairman under Reagan.

This creates "asset inflationary cycles" and as Paul Volker, the last Fed Chairman who had balls, a society can not consume more that it produces and the US is consuming 6% more a year than it produces and running up huge trade deficits.

The hedge funds is where the really big crimes began and they were entirely Unregulated!

This is how $100 Billion to $200 Billion bad mortgages at most... turns into a multi-Trillion Dollar disaster...

NEWSHOUR w/ JIM LEHRER | Solman’s Domino Effect Pt.1 | PBS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mBtteIWefM

NEWSHOUR w/ JIM LEHRER | Solman’s Domino Effect Pt.2 | PBS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CeyLDxuxaU

Economist Thomas Palley lays it very well here:

The Debt Delusion:

Excerpt:

In this way, the Fed contributed to creating the sub-prime crisis. However, in the Fed's defense, low interest rates were needed to maintain the expansion. In effect, the new cycle locks the Fed into an unstable stance whereby it must prevent asset price declines to avert recession, yet must also promote asset bubbles to sustain expansions.

So, even if the Fed and US Treasury now manage to stave off recession, what will fuel future growth? With debt burdens elevated and housing prices significantly above levels warranted by their historical relation to income, the business cycle of the last two decades appears exhausted.

It is not enough to deal only with the crisis of the day. Policy must also chart a stable long-term course, which implies the need to reconsider the paradigm of the past 25 years. That means ending trade deficits that drain spending and jobs, and restoring the link between wages and productivity. That way, wage income, not debt and asset price inflation, can again provide the engine of demand growth.

http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=99

Very Cute...

Yes... The predatory lender laws were removed. Why? Because Barack Obama (et al) sued banks to obtain a looser reading of the CRA, and thus opening the door to usurious lending. To wit: "Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.a...

This is the same ACORN that had at least seventeen employees in five states investigated, indicted, or convicted for voter fraud. This says nothing of their disdain for the second amendment to our constitution. Sure ACORN has pushed individual cases of "predatory lending". But, in doing so, they put the banks between a Scylla and Charybdis. The lawsuits demanded loans that would fail the "predatory lending" tests. This forced the OCC to issue decisions on a case by case basis. If you know government agencies, you know they don't do this unless an obvious contradiction in law exists.

I get the globalization of the mortgage market. But that matters only in increasing the depth of the issues, not the cause. The cause is government drawing too fine a line, and not understanding the line they draw. When the enviro-whacko's pushed we saw $4.00 gas. Folks waking up to the home price flux happened earlier, but it seems the Congress just wanted to push the economy into the ditch. Government includes the executive branch, but it also includes the legislative, and judiciary. Bush wanted to coordinate a response, but was blocked. John McCain took a shot, but couldn't get a vote. The Democrats continued their end runs, and made the mess. That's what happens when you put politics before your Country.

But you have obviously made up your mind, and no one is going to change it. It is not my cause to teach you, but to teach the lurkers, and casual readers you are trying to distract. When you look closely, you see who puts Country First!

CallCamp @ 112:

Very Cute...

Yes... The predatory lender laws were removed. Why? Because Barack Obama (et al) sued banks to obtain a looser reading of the CRA, and thus opening the door to usurious lending. To wit: "Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.a...

This is the same ACORN that had at least seventeen employees in five states investigated, indicted, or convicted for voter fraud. This says nothing of their disdain for the second amendment to our constitution. Sure ACORN has pushed individual cases of "predatory lending". But, in doing so, they put the banks between a Scylla and Charybdis. The lawsuits demanded loans that would fail the "predatory lending" tests. This forced the OCC to issue decisions on a case by case basis. If you know government agencies, you know they don't do this unless an obvious contradiction in law exists.

I get the globalization of the mortgage market. But that matters only in increasing the depth of the issues, not the cause. The cause is government drawing too fine a line, and not understanding the line they draw. When the enviro-whacko's pushed we saw $4.00 gas. Folks waking up to the home price flux happened earlier, but it seems the Congress just wanted to push the economy into the ditch. Government includes the executive branch, but it also includes the legislative, and judiciary. Bush wanted to coordinate a response, but was blocked. John McCain took a shot, but couldn't get a vote. The Democrats continued their end runs, and made the mess. That's what happens when you put politics before your Country.

But you have obviously made up your mind, and no one is going to change it. It is not my cause to teach you, but to teach the lurkers, and casual readers you are trying to distract. When you look closely, you see who puts Country First!

Doing background research as a junior attorney in a law firm that did an anti-redlining laws in one state suit didn't remove the predatory lending laws...

What struck down ALL of the states predatory lending laws was Bush's Federal Law suit against the state of New York.

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

Washington Post Excerpt:

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR200802...

You clowns can't win with the truth so you resort to lies and distortion... but the truth is too big to sweep under the rug any more... you can't hide!

You babble on about country first but that too is a lie... it is ideology first and the country and the facts be damned!

AndyK.

Please accept my apologies for dropping a paragraph. Football got in the way.

Andy K @ 113:

CallCamp @ 112:

Very Cute...

Yes... The predatory lender laws were removed. Why? Because Barack Obama (et al) sued banks to obtain a looser reading of the CRA, and thus opening the door to usurious lending. To wit: "Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.a...

--- Dropped Paragraph Begins ---
That suit, and others were the impetus behind the increased focus on enforcing CRA. Before that, home prices still generally followed inflation. When prices of one class of "goods" separate from the norm, you have a bubble. When the bubble was smaller, many options were open. As the bubble got bigger, the Bush administration tried to coordinate a fix, but was blocked by Franks and Watt. Meanwhile ACORN began watchdogging the CRA in court. To wit: "The (partially) tax-funded "community groups" like ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) can file petitions with regulators that stop the bank's activities in their tracks, perhaps defeating them altogether. The banks routinely buy off ACORN and other "community groups" by giving them millions of dollars as well as promising to make even more dubious loans."
http://mises.org/story/2963
--- Dropped Paragraph Ends ---

This is the same ACORN that had at least seventeen employees in five states investigated, indicted, or convicted for voter fraud. This says nothing of their disdain for the second amendment to our constitution. Sure ACORN has pushed individual cases of "predatory lending". But, in doing so, they put the banks between a Scylla and Charybdis. The lawsuits demanded loans that would fail the "predatory lending" tests. This forced the OCC to issue decisions on a case by case basis. If you know government agencies, you know they don't do this unless an obvious contradiction in law exists.

I get the globalization of the mortgage market. But that matters only in increasing the depth of the issues, not the cause. The cause is government drawing too fine a line, and not understanding the line they draw. When the enviro-whacko's pushed we saw $4.00 gas. Folks waking up to the home price flux happened earlier, but it seems the Congress just wanted to push the economy into the ditch. Government includes the executive branch, but it also includes the legislative, and judiciary. Bush wanted to coordinate a response, but was blocked. John McCain took a shot, but couldn't get a vote. The Democrats continued their end runs, and made the mess. That's what happens when you put politics before your Country.

But you have obviously made up your mind, and no one is going to change it. It is not my cause to teach you, but to teach the lurkers, and casual readers you are trying to distract. When you look closely, you see who puts Country First!

And your link is there for what? Proof? Because all it says it that Obama billed 2.5 hours at a junior partners rate when he filed a motion asking for more time in a red-lining suit against Citibank.

I'm calling bullshit. Even if you can present anything resembling evidence to make your case, you're not going to show that Obama and ACORN asked for ballooning interest rates and/or for loan officers to direct applicants to falsify loan applications.

And if you think that folks at this site aren't aware of how GOP prosecutors have used the voter fraud laws in partisan manners, you should go through the C&L archives.

Again, sorry!
As for the first link, it goes to motivation. Obama chose that firm, over several that would have paid more. How very altruistic. But now, since he has participated in creating the problem, he should own up to it!

Anyone else???

Veni Vidi Vici...

Good Luck All... I'd rather be lucky than good any day. Good I can do something about, but luck is God's providence...

The Wall Street financial crisis is a FRAUD. The market EXPECTS a taxpayer BAILOUT because President George Walker Bu!!sh** says that there is a financial crisis, and is DEMANDING the level of funding he is requesting, and Secretary Paulson has planned for. The entire premise of this post is based upon financial market "perceptions". The financial markets DO NOT NEED a taxpayer-funded BAILOUT. The financial markets WILL self-correct, all on their own, AND WITHOUT the BAILOUT.

How do I KNOW THAT BUSH has not been honest with the American people or with Congress about this financial "crisis"?

EASY!

I watched the broadcast of his speech, and saw his lips move, and heard his voice. EVERY TIME HE does that, HE is LYING. I don't know WHY HE always LIES. Just because he is a (not-so) dry-drunk powder snorting rodeo clown AND a SOCIOPATH is NOT THE REASON, only the EXCUSE.

The REASON is because HE and his Bush Crime Family buddies want to pull off one last caper against common sense and the American people and the US Treasury. From the California/Enron/Cheney/TS Energy Commission onward, this Bush regime has been bent upon raping and pillaging the US Treasury and the American Middle Class. The final and utter destruction of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Rule of Law in order to install a fascist Corporate Socialist New World Order has been a BUSH Family pipe-dream ever since grandpa Prescott Bush started to shave.