Obama '08?

@okie,

Typical conservative dodging personal responsibility.

THE PEOPLE WHO DESIGNED THESE INSTRUMENTS AND SOLD THEM ARE TOTALLY TO BLAME.

BTW, one of the reasons why I bought a house is that seven rooms with a two-car, two-storey garage on 1/3 of an acre meant I would pay less for domicile each month than if I had rented a two bedroom apartment.

Of course, since you regard yourself as a self-made and since that concept causes you to hate -- without any understanding -- anyone who is not like you, you will not understand my last point.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

revelette wrote:

The following is a pretty good article on the situations which led to the meltdown. All in all, it was a bad decision to reverse the Glass-Steagall Act. However, it was the banks who acted irresponsible by making those loans just to sell them to make a profit.
The point is, who is to blame, the people buying bad loans or the people selling them?

The loans were designed to fail, the guys who created them knew it, the guys who sold those loans to the public knew it. The people who created this are to blame. The people who bought into it were 1/1000th as knowledgeable about the situation.

Their mistake was to trust the people who told them lies. Nowhere near the same level as those who intentionally deceived.

Quote:

If the government began buying every auto loan in this country, without regard to the soundness of the car, the loan, or the ability of the people to pay off their loan, what do you think would happen to the auto sales industry and all of the auto loans in this country? I know that might be a very tough question for you, revelette, but I think just an ounce of common sense and a very basic understanding of human nature and economics would help you answer it very easily. Give it a try, and perhaps it will help you understand what happened with the housing market.

Are you capable of making a good analogy at all? Or is it just going to be a continual series of bad ones coming from you?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

You misunderstand completely. The point is, if the government offered to buy every penny for a dime each, what would happen to the price, availability, and ultimate value of the pennies in this country, providing of course that the mint did not make any more pennies ? And after all of the effects of that policy upon the value and availability of pennies, dimes, etc., who would be mostly to blame for those effects, the government for paying far more for the pennies than they were worth, or the people selling the pennies to the government? Would you venture a guess, pom, or are you going to dodge the question?

Cyclops, you are welcome to answer the question too.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

You misunderstand completely. The point is, if the government offered to buy every penny for a dime, what would happen to the price, availability, and ultimate value of the pennies in this country, providing of course that the mint did not make any more pennies ?

This is a terrible analogy. Stop trying to make analogies and just discuss the actual situation, please!

You are making the whole conversation worse with your attempt to actually talk about something simpler. The problem is more complex than your analogies purport.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Face it, it is a good analogy. Fannie and Freddie and the government encouraged subprime and risky loans by guaranteeing they would buy them. It seems quite similar to offering a guarantee that they would ultimately pay a dime for each and every penny. In such a scenario, every savvy banker would of course try to buy as many pennies as they could, then bundle them and sell as fast as they could, over and over. In the process, they might even have to pay a nickel or more each for those pennies. That is, until the penny bubble burst, when Fannie and Freddie went broke and the value of pennies plummeted. By that time, people found out the real value of pennies, in fact just a penny each, plus the fact that perhaps many were even counterfeit which would make matters even worse.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Simple minds have difficulty with more complex problems.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Face it, it is a good analogy. Fannie and Freddie and the government encouraged subprime and risky loans by guaranteeing they would buy them.

But, they didn't. You're totally wrong. Until 2004 Freddie and Fannie had a very small part in this entire thing. It wasn't until the executives there realized that the trading houses - such as Lehman and Bear Stearns - were making a KILLING off of these things, and they aggressively pushed to get a bigger piece of the action. In an attempt to maintain their position in the market.

Not only that, but that wasn't even the largest part of the problem. That would be the lack of regulation of the CDO market, the CDS market, and lack of national standards regarding Mortgage Servicers - as well as a big heaping of help by totally corrupt ratings agencies, who slapped an AAA rating on stuff they KNEW was ****. Continually.

If any one of those markets were properly regulated - no crisis in 2008. This was totally preventable on all levels.

Actual facts totally **** your argument, do you know that? You have no real knowledge of the historical record. Just opinions.

Quote:

It seems quite similar to offering to guarantee that they would ultimately pay a dime for each and every penny.

It only seems like that because you don't know enough about what actually went on. Please, for god's sake - enough with the crappy analogies! The situation is not at all like what you said it was.

Quote:

In such a scenario, every savvy banker would of course try to buy as many pennies as they could, then bundle them and sell as fast as they could, over and over. In the process, they might even have to pay a nickel or more each for those pennies. That is, until the penny bubble burst, when Fannie and Freddie went broke and the value of pennies plummeted. By that time, people found out the real value of pennies, in fact just a penny each, plus the fact that perhaps many were even counterfeit which would make matters even worse.

Okie - do you not realize that these banks would be left holding dozens of billions of dollars of useless ****? You state that every savvy banker's job is to take actions that are high-risk and provide them with short-term reward, even when they KNOW that it's going to sink their bank and wreck their business.

Is this your true belief? That the savvy banker's job is to chase maximum profit at the expense of every other consideration? That is exactly what happened here and we all had to bail them out because of it. You think this is appropriate behavior? I couldn't disagree more.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@okie,

I dodge nothing, buffoon. However, your simplistic blather makes no sense. Why are you talking about pennies???!!!! Didn't you take your medication?

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt and tried to read an analogy in your rant but you do mean pennies. The subject is mortgages and the rape and robbery of the common man -- kidnapped by the Republicans and denied his name and given the stupid Joe the plumber moniker instead -- by the people you defend who use the American dream of home ownership to accomplish their greedy, disgusting goals.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

It only seems like that because you don't know enough about what actually went on. Please, for god's sake - enough with the crappy analogies! The situation is not at all like what you said it was.

YES! YES! YES!!! And I am not quoting Molly Bloom.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Face it, it is a good analogy. Fannie and Freddie and the government encouraged subprime and risky loans by guaranteeing they would buy them.
But, they didn't. You're totally wrong. Until 2004 Freddie and Fannie had a very small part in this entire thing. ......

Read the following, cyclops:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae
"The Federal National Mortgage Association, colloquially known as Fannie Mae, was established in 1938 by amendments to the National Housing Act.[5] after the Great Depression as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Fannie Mae was established in order to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages in an attempt to raise levels of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing.[6] Fannie Mae created a liquid secondary mortgage market and thereby made it possible for banks and other loan originators to issue more housing loans, primarily by buying Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgages.[7] For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a monopoly over the secondary mortgage market.[8] In 1954, an amendment known as the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act[9] made Fannie Mae into "mixed-ownership corporation" meaning that federal government held the preferred stock while private investors held the common stock;[5] in 1968 it converted to a publicly held corporation, in order to remove its activity and debt from from the federal budget.[10] In the 1968 change, Fannie Mae's predecessor (also called Fannie Mae) was split into the current Fannie Mae and the Government National Mortgage Association ("Ginnie Mae"). Ginnie Mae, which remained a government organization, supports FHA-insured mortgages as well as Veterans Administration (VA) and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) insured mortgages, with the full faith and credit of the United States government.[11] In 1970, the federal government authorized Fannie Mae to purchase private mortgages, i.e. those not insured by the FHA, VA, or FmHA, and created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), colloquially known as Freddie Mac, to compete with Fannie Mae and thus facilitate a more robust and efficient secondary mortgage market.[11]"

2 Replies

@okie,

And? None of that is responsive in any way to what I wrote. Highlighting basic facts about Fannie Mae doesn't change a single thing about the situation.

I recommend you start with this post and read - really read - the 5-part series I highlighted in the thread. It will give you an in-depth and non-ideological picture of what actually happened in the mortgage market, background on the technical details of what went wrong, and how everyone is trying to blame everyone else -

http://able2know.org/topic/162738-1#post-4382595

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

okie still hasn't figured out that the establishment of Freddie and Fannie wasn't the cause of the financial crash. Once an idea takes over his brain, it's set in cement, and will never change no matter how many facts and evidence are presented. He can't see that his own postings shows he doesn't have any clue about what he claims to be proving.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And? None of that is responsive in any way to what I wrote. Highlighting basic facts about Fannie Mae doesn't change a single thing about the situation.

Cycloptichorn

It changes everything. The home loan crisis would not have happened the way it did, if the government had stayed out of it completely. There is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that if Fannie and Freddie had not started guaranteeing and the government mandating risky and shaky loans, this crisis would not have gone down the way it did.

1 Reply

@ cyc and ci --

Every time okie does one of these idiot trips, I feel like I was the model in the "Head On" commercial. Apply directly to the forehead. Apply directly to the forehead.

Two or three okie posts produce always the same sort of headache.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn, Snopes did not debunk the claims plus the evidence to support those claims that the final bill of ObamaCare is no damn good for America.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And? None of that is responsive in any way to what I wrote. Highlighting basic facts about Fannie Mae doesn't change a single thing about the situation.

Cycloptichorn

It changes everything. The home loan crisis would not have happened the way it did, if the government had stayed out of it completely.

The government was IN IT for 50-60 years and there was no crisis until greedy bankers invented new ways to make money off of nothing. Yet you blame the organization that was there all along...

It's like blaming 9/11 on US involvement in Iraq and the Middle East. Something that you would never dream of doing. But hey, if we had never been involved there, the whole thing never would have happened. So it's our fault. Right?

Quote:

There is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that if Fannie and Freddie had not started guaranteeing and the government mandating risky and shaky loans, this crisis would not have gone down the way it did.

You don't know what you are talking about. You don't respond to anything factual. Just repeat the same ideological points that Rush or Beck told you were true.

I don't find this particularly impressive and I doubt anyone here does either. What's the point in having a discussion at all if you aren't willing to look into the actual facts of the matter.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn, Snopes did not debunk the claims plus the evidence to support those claims that the final bill of ObamaCare is no damn good for America.

Yes, they did. Read the link.

I'm not interested in your opinion of HC reform, because you're kind of a nutjob. Can't you just mutter to yourself in the A2K version of a corner?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
And? None of that is responsive in any way to what I wrote. Highlighting basic facts about Fannie Mae doesn't change a single thing about the situation.
Cycloptichorn
It changes everything. The home loan crisis would not have happened the way it did, if the government had stayed out of it completely.

The government was IN IT for 50-60 years and there was no crisis until greedy bankers invented new ways to make money off of nothing. Yet you blame the organization that was there all along...Cycloptichorn

You have your template, just as most liberals do, that private business, such as bankers, are "greedy," and that your beloved federal government is pure and guiltless. It is very sad, cyclops, that there are too many people like you, that have unwittingly created the disastrous economy and totally bankrupt government, but you still fail to see the error of your liberal thinking and philosophy. Very sad indeed. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer along with you and the rest of your ilk.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
And? None of that is responsive in any way to what I wrote. Highlighting basic facts about Fannie Mae doesn't change a single thing about the situation.
Cycloptichorn
It changes everything. The home loan crisis would not have happened the way it did, if the government had stayed out of it completely.

The government was IN IT for 50-60 years and there was no crisis until greedy bankers invented new ways to make money off of nothing. Yet you blame the organization that was there all along...Cycloptichorn
You have your template, just as most liberals do, that private business, such as bankers, are "greedy,"

No, I don't. But in this case, they certainly were. These bankers and investors KNEW the market would collapse, and they made as much money as quick as they could, ******* their own banks in the process. And you know that's true.

Quote:

and that your beloved federal government is pure and guiltless.

Guiltless? I just stated in the post above that the failure to properly regulate a wide variety of things directly led to the crisis. How is that guiltless? The gov't didn't do it's damn job!

Quote:

It is very sad, cyclops, that there are too many people like you, that have unwittingly created the disastrous economy and totally bankrupt government, but you still fail to see the error of your liberal thinking and philosophy. Very sad indeed. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer along with you and the rest of your ilk.

You are nothing more than an empty suit on this issue, Okie. You don't have an answer for any specific data point at all. Do you realize that you are unable to discuss the topic in depth? I mean, is that even apparent to you? What do you do when I write things and you don't know what I'm talking about? Just pretend it doesn't exist?

Do you agree with me that by your logic, we are responsible for 9/11? After all, like you said - if we had never been involved there, it never would have happened. I'd love to hear you answer this.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Good luck on hearing anything but B.S. from Okie.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know