spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:28 pm
@mysteryman,
I beg your pardon.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:21 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHj8-HSi5AA



Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:45 pm
@okie,
Good God Okie, I said kinda sorta...

That looks much like spam.

(and starts out "Fox News")
okie
 
  4  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:55 pm
@Rockhead,
I know it doesn't fit your liberal template of your liberal sources, but perhaps you could break out of your cacoon and do a little thinking for yourself. Have the courage to face the truth and listen to alternate opinions, without dismissing them out of hand. The evidence is there. Instead of attacking the message, perhaps just once examine the message.

By the way, some pretty sharp people warned you of all of this, and your kooks in Congess would not listen.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:58 pm
@okie,
In what way am I a liberal, ditto head?

(do you even know who I am?)

I'll wait for you to listen to Mr Rush in the morning, so you know what to say...

Shocked
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:02 pm
@okie,
Yeah.. It's the democrats fault because they didn't make the GOP pass something when the GOP was in control of both houses. Rolling Eyes

It's the democrat's fault is kind of silly argument okie when we only need to look at the facts. The GOP didn't even get the legislation out of the committees to be voted on let alone filibustered. The party in charge has a majority on every committee. But it's the minority party's fault? Geez.. do you guys ever accept responsibility when you are in power?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:02 pm
@okie,
okie, if you want to discuss the Fannie and Freddie issue in detail, this is a good thread for you. http://able2know.org/topic/122646-1

Fannie and Freddie had their issues, but this current crisis is way bigger than that.
okie
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:03 pm
@Rockhead,
Perhaps you don't know what you are, depending on what you smoke, for all I know. But usually anyone that spouts the line on Fox is pretty much a lost cause liberal.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:03 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

I know it doesn't fit your liberal template of your liberal sources, but perhaps you could break out of your cacoon and do a little thinking for yourself. Have the courage to face the truth and listen to alternate opinions, without dismissing them out of hand. The evidence is there. Instead of attacking the message, perhaps just once examine the message.

By the way, some pretty sharp people warned you of all of this, and your kooks in Congess would not listen.

I think it is YOU that needs to face the truth okie.. Who has the majority on committees?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:03 pm
@FreeDuck,
Besides, Mae and Mac has already been bailed out.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:06 pm
@okie,
Get a grip or a clue, but I'm not done with you.

Speak with authority, or shut the f*ck up...

(please tell us what Mr Rush has to say tomorrow, won't you?)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:26 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

okie, if you want to discuss the Fannie and Freddie issue in detail, this is a good thread for you. http://able2know.org/topic/122646-1

Fannie and Freddie had their issues, but this current crisis is way bigger than that.

Hey Freeduck, the same thing there, they went on a binge of making really bad loans to people that were not sound borrowers, and there was not enough equity to prop it all up if the housing market went down very much. There was not enough cushion. And the Democrats were the primary obstructionists in blocking efforts to fix it. If you can prove that thesis wrong, I will be anxious to see it.

I think the Democrats know this bomb has gone off in their backyard, on their watch in Congress. It should have been fixed before, but they could have tried to fix it as late as a few months ago, but hey, old Barney Frank was still claiming Fannie and Freddie were quite healthy whats all the fuss just 3 or 4 months ago I think. So all kinds of obfuscations will abound, not the least of which will be presented here as microcosms of that scenario by the likes of Liberal or socialist idealogues, cyclops, ci, Parados, Debra, and others. They cannot afford to allow such talk and information to get out of control because this bomb is big enough to nearly destroy a political party. There is that much anger out here.

So they will make every effort to control the information. They would love to squash Fox News and oh if they just had the fairness doctrine and they could shut up all the radio talk pundits that delve into the details. So they will be very busy in the coming days and weeks to preserve what they think will be an Obama victory, etc., and to pour cold water on any facts that might threaten their desire for victory in November, to move their agenda forward.
okie
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Besides, Mae and Mac has already been bailed out.

ci, that debacle still lies at the root of much of this.

I realize anyone that suggests the Democrats have any fault at all will be the favorite whipping boy of all the leftists here. That is no surprise. Its always been that way, and always will be I assume. That is what you guys do.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:32 pm
@okie,
okie, It's true that mae and mac were one of the biggest holders of morgages, but the banks and finance companies also played the greed game who believed they were making easy money. That's the reason why, most of them are going belly up; the consequence of their no-value assets exceeding their cash.
okie
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Isn't it correct that Fannie and Freddie influenced the whole thing, because the banks wanted in on the gravy train as well, ci?

I look at it as a house of cards, and all you need is one big weak joint, one flash point to undermine the whole thing. Its all interconnected.
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:38 pm
@okie,
I urge you to take a look at that thread, okie. There is a lot of discussion there about who did what when. Fannie and Freddie were regulated by an office in HUD, not by Congress. There was a movement to move that oversight under the Treasury. It passed out of committee but didn't go anywhere from there. It is too much of a stretch to take that one bill that was never brought to a vote on the Senate floor (and would have had to have been reconciled with an HR bill) and say that the Democrats caused the whole mess because they didn't allow Republicans to move oversight from one cabinet department to another.

But again, they have already been bailed out. This problem we are talking about now is just way bigger. It's a whole other enchilada.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 09:54 pm
@FreeDuck,
Yes, they accused the Republicans of wanting to hijack the oversight into another bureaucracy. But HUD was failing, that was the whole reason why it needed changing, and the Dems claimed there was no problem. Its history. The Repubs saw the problem and tried to fix it. The oversight by HUD was broken, thats the whole point. It needed fixing. Some people tried. Democrats protected their little kingdom of social experiments. I guess HUD was just too sacred of an agency to mess with?

I am just now getting more acquainted with the details of this mess, but I have known almost my entire adult life that HUD was a liberal experiment with waste and mismanagement as long as I can remember. HUD has been fertile ground for corruption and government waste forever. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that was a time bomb ready to go off. Add the more recent political correctness, and you have a total disaster. I seem to be learning these things were run by Democrats and their friends, and they took alot of money out of them, even while running them into the ground, Johnson, Raines, Gorelick, and so forth.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 10:05 pm
@okie,
That would be true if Mae and Mac purchased all those mortgage junk, but they didn't; that's the reason those banks that participated in the money game got burned.

okie, Do you have any knowledge of accounting or bookkeeping?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:20 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Isn't it correct that Fannie and Freddie influenced the whole thing, because the banks wanted in on the gravy train as well, ci?
Not really. Sub-prime lending, ARM lending where totally inappropriate, utter lack of responsibility to administer to loans the second they're written, (and tons more stuff I don't yet have a firm grasp on) was a time-bomb of its own making. Some of these things work well in a rising market price bubble; but is doomed to failure when real estate values create negative equity positions. It's a fun ride when simply signing a mortgage gets you an R.O.I., almost regardless... and banks make tons of dough when equity magically appears, thereby making absurdly risky paper valuable, but it is an extremely irresponsible strategy for both the real estate purchaser and the lending institution when more traditional safeguards are not observed.

Fannie and Freddie, while not the soundest business models in the first place, were no accident, and government couldn't in good faith abandon its responsibility to back them. They should be reigned in for the time being, at least, but they are hardly the whole of the problem.

okie wrote:
I look at it as a house of cards, and all you need is one big weak joint, one flash point to undermine the whole thing. Its all interconnected.
Likely you're only looking at the piece of the puzzle Rush is flapping his jacks about. That is certainly not all there is to it. What do you suppose happens when banks lend dough on say a $500,000 dollar home, with little down, on an adjustable rate mortgage... only to have the home's value go down creating negative equity? How about when they qualified people at for an ARM at the current rate, literally pretending that they didn't know the purchaser would no longer qualify when the rate went up? How about the no to low doc nonsense for those who did show up with some cash?

There seems to have been an unregulated orgy going on that very much resembled a Ponzi Scheme in that the people pushing the paper were profiting immediately, knowing full well the bubble market would have to come to an end. I'm still learning the extent of the irresponsibility myself; but don't let Rush convince you it's all about Fanny and Freddie. It ain't.
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 03:46 am
@OCCOM BILL,
I was truly amazed when the House voted against the rescue plan.

Its the end of capitalism as we know it.

The Marxists always said the inherent contradictions within the capitalist system would ultimately destroy it...

So what now?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Who or What is Responsible? - Discussion by Merry Andrew
Debt ceiling? - Question by Buffalo
More Proof that HPQ SUCKS! - Discussion by hawkeye10
The Legacy of the Reagan Revolution - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The Bush/Obunga Dark Age - Discussion by gungasnake
No real limits to growth - Discussion by gungasnake
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
Wage discrimination - Question by zewittykitty
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Let it crash
  3. » Page 20
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 11:35:32