joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 03:49 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Really? I too would like to have a closed and unquestioning mind excessively prone to categorical judgments and intolerant of conflicting perspectives. What would I need to do to merit one of those, so that I can be just like you?

I believe you are already virtually there - though we are very different people.

Then it is indeed an honor to stand virtually side-by-side with you.
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 03:53 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
To repeat the reference:
Quote:
"On May 20, 2009, Public Law No. 111-21, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, was enacted into law, creating the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC). According to the Act, the FCIC was established to “examine the causes, domestic and global, of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States.” The law requires that today, December 15, 2010, the FCIC submit “to the President and to the Congress a report containing the findings and conclusions of the Commission on the causes of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States.”
This primer contains preliminary findings and conclusions released by Vice Chairman Bill Thomas, Commissioner Keith Hennessey, Commissioner Douglas Holtz-Eakin, and Commissioner Peter J. Wallison, and represents a portion of the findings and conclusions resulting from our work on the FCIC. As the transmission of the report of the FCIC to the President and Congress requires a majority vote of the Commission, these findings and conclusions do not constitute the Commission’s report. Rather, this document is an effort to reflect the clear intention of our enabling legislation."


Quote:
"The GSEs invested in high-risk mortgages in two ways. The first was by doing exactly what the GSEs had done for decades: guaranteeing loans. The GSEs would provide a credit guarantee on mortgage pools that were sold to them by originators and then issued back to the lender as a GSE-guaranteed MBS, or “agency MBS.” The GSEs would charge a guarantee fee in exchange for taking on the credit risk of the pool of mortgages. But in an effort to meet their affordable housing goals, the GSEs began guaranteeing ever-riskier loans.
The second way the GSEs invested in high-risk mortgages was through MBS backed by subprime and Alt-A mortgages, which they held on balance sheet. Although some of these loans qualified for affordable housing goals, these investments were also, to a large extent, pure interest-rate arbitrage, given the low cost of funding for the GSEs.
The GSEs were not the only means by which the government supported the financing of high-risk mortgages. Through the GSEs, FHA loans, VA loans, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Community Reinvestment Act [CRA], among other programs, the government subsidized and, in some cases, mandated the extension of credit to high-risk borrowers, propagating risks for financial firms, the mortgage market, taxpayers, and ultimately the financial system.

From page ii and 3, respectively, of the Republican Commissoners FCIC report

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Wow, did you really just link to the report generated by the Republican members of the FCIC? With a straight face??!!!

You have linked to one of the most ignorant and worst-sourced documents I've ever seen; a propoganda piece, put out by the Republican members on the committee only, which represents nothing more than an expression of the same ideology you share. It gives no causal evidence at all to support your position, but simply repeats facile statements over and over again as if they provided true insight into a situation.

I retract my earlier suspicions regarding your intelligence, if you believe this is what passes for evidence to support your position. And if you really want to get into the weeds on this issue, let me know - and I will point out the errors with both their conclusions and yours, in detail.


Yes, I noted that only the republicans fulfilled their legal obligation to present their work product on time as required, also. The Democrats decided, for whatever reason, that they would vote to postpone the congressional mandate, thereby thwarting the law, to a later date. Perhaps, they were under union rules and wanted to rack up a little overtime, who knows. No matter, these days I guess we should just be thankful that these Democrats actually showed up to vote. Wink

Regarding your last sentence, I would like to take you up on your offer "to get into the weeds on this issue".
This might be an excellent opportunity for you to present your side, or that of the Democrats, for that matter, which is fleshed out in the final report (the Republicans published a dissent so you could work from one document). We await your analysis.

JM
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 03:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
It's about cost/benefit analysis, and making the necessary changes to cut cost - and increase taxes to meet the necessary social needs of our society.
A dollar not spent is as good as a dollar collected at tax time...I am open to the idea of changing the tax structure, who is taxed and how much, but I am firm in my conclusion that government is too big and needs to be shrunk. That being the case I dont see increased taxes as a solution, it mearly perpetuates the mistake of allowing our government to be too big and to have too much power. I reject the nanny state as a harm to the health of individuals, and since the people are more important than the government it is the government that must take the hit.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 04:04 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

[Then it is indeed an honor to stand virtually side-by-side with you.


I'm virtually pleased.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 04:12 pm
Walker is speaking now...see CNN.com for video.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 04:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawk, If you know anything about my politics, I also have advocated for smaller government from very early on; not just the past couple of years.

Increasing taxes is necessary; that's where we differ. Not taxing the wealthy is the worst policy our government has; their wealth multiplied for many years while the middle class and poor remained stagnant - or lost hours, jobs, and/or their homes.

Our country must continue to provide the necessary services to maintain a middle class country such as our schools, infrastructure, health care (which includes the Department of Health), security, fair trade, economic competitiveness (through research grants and support of our educational system), and the myriad of ways they are necessary to make our country function. And just as important, to pay down the national debt.

As more people lose their jobs and homes, there's an increased need for government services and support. Not less.

Continuing to cut taxes solves nothing, and increases the problems for our society.

I count you as one of the ignorant posters on a2k.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 04:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I count you as one of the ignorant posters on a2k.
You have said that I am right on economic threads far too often for this claim to have any credibility . Even here you are agreeing with me about the need to shrink government.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 04:36 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Quote:
Regarding your last sentence, I would like to take you up on your offer "to get into the weeds on this issue".
This might be an excellent opportunity for you to present your side, or that of the Democrats, for that matter, which is fleshed out in the final report (the Republicans published a dissent so you could work from one document). We await your analysis.


I'm going to start another thread on the issue, so we don't destroy this one; I'll send you a link to it.

I'm not interested in limiting any discussion to the political document you linked to, or the final one put out by the whole committee, so if that's what you had in mind, forget it. Both of those documents are political in nature and gloss over large sections of what actually happened. Sort of like referring to the 9/11 commission for a report as to what went on that day Rolling Eyes

Instead, I'm interested in discussing the entire financial crisis and examining, with links and documentation, what events truly led up to the crisis; and which ones did not.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 04:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
He did not bother to defend his action to bust unions, it was full speed ahead to an alleged better future.

I was very disappointed that he tried to claim that he was out to promote kids by putting more money into going after the boogeyman of online child predators, and deal with crime in general by putting extra money into the DNA lab, presumably a play for women under the idea that the state will get more rape kits checked.

Probably all are good political plays, but from a managerial leadership standpoint it is a negative. Tossing a few tiny carrots at a presumably fearful public to cover up the massive readjustment of government that will hurt the citizens seems a little to superficial and cynical to do much good.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 04:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
I'm addressing your position on taxation and cutting costs. Your position is ignorant.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 04:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I'm addressing your position on taxation and cutting costs. Your position is ignorant.
It depends upon how we do it, if we are going to be Ireland and give the corporate class everything they want while driving austerity measures that take two pounds of flesh from the general citizens then it will not work. If we reorganize and reform the mission of government then it might.

Walker sounded to me like he wants to be Ireland, while claiming not to be, but I will await analysis of his budget. He wants to totally rub out corporate gains taxes on a lot of corporations, how extensive this giveaway is was not clear though.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 05:02 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

[Then it is indeed an honor to stand virtually side-by-side with you.


I'm virtually pleased.

Of course you are.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 05:02 pm
@hawkeye10,
We are not Ireland; we're the US with unique challenges and issues that must be addressed.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 05:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
We are not Ireland; we're the US with unique challenges and issues that must be addressed
No **** Sherlock...but the Walker approach to balancing the government books sounds too much like the Ireland approach for comfort.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 05:32 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawk, You wrote:
Quote:
It depends upon how we do it, if we are going to be Ireland and give the corporate class everything they want while driving austerity measures that take two pounds of flesh from the general citizens then it will not work. If we reorganize and reform the mission of government then it might.


The shits in your pot; don't start a sentence with "it depends how we do it..." In simple English, it means it's open for consideration.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 05:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Wow, I am amazed that a world traveler who hangs out at a2K such as yourself is so confined by old fogey literalism as to not understand my speech pattern.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 05:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
Yeah, it's a tough world out there; use proper English to mean what you want it to mean. Otherwise, it gets confused.

BTW, it has absolutely nothing to do with world travel.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 07:08 pm
rjb, I found this:
Quote:
Koch group Americans for Prosperity campaigning in Wisconsin

By Don Walker of the Journal Sentinel

Feb. 28, 2011 |(152) Comments

Americans for Prosperity, a political action group financed by the billionaire Koch brothers, has been active in supporting Gov. Scott Walker and his budget-repair bill.

AFP director Tim Phillips said Monday that his group already had spent $400,000 on TV and radio ads in the state in support of the governor.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 10:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It's not just that there are fewer workers, it is that workers are earning less money.

As Robert Reich pointed out, that the top tier stops paying into Social Security at 84% rather than at 90%.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 10:50 pm
@joefromchicago,
Very Happy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 11:37:59