The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-11-2013, 12:09 PM   #101
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,917
Default

Such manly men!

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78rcowperthwaite.phtml
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 01:43 PM   #102
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,100

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
As usual, you have the facts bass-ackwards...

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/1...ot-fannie.html

Article War!!!

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...12948811465427

Quote:
Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess
And then of course, we're told that Gummint regulation would have kept all bad things from happening. But in the real world, from 2005 on, concerns were repeatedly raised about the Government's own implicit support of derivatives through their GSEs.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...01/24/8234040/

Quote:
Fannie and Freddie dominate the mortgage market, but they don't originate home loans. Instead, they make their money in two major ways. One is conservative: They get a fee for guaranteeing the payments on mortgages they buy, which they then resell to investors, usually in the form of mortgage-backed securities. The more aggressive way is to hold on to the mortgages, assume all the inherent risk, and make money on the spread between their low cost of capital and the higher yield of the mortgage portfolio. (Alan Greenspan would later call this "the big, fat gap.") The more mortgages the GSEs buy, the faster their profits can grow. Since 1995, Fannie and Freddie's holdings of residential debt have grown an average of 20% a year, and together they now carry $1.5 trillion in home loans and mortgage securities on their books--more than the top ten commercial banks combined. Thanks in large part to this growth, Fannie has had double-digit profit gains for the last 17 years--and an average return on equity of 25%. But the GSEs' size has people increasingly worried about what might happen if anything went wrong--and not just to Fannie and Freddie but to the entire financial system.

There is one additional concern: derivatives, which institutions rely on to hedge interest rate risk. Over time, Fannie and Freddie became two of Wall Street's top users of derivatives. Of course, derivatives have their own risks--as America discovered in 1998 when hedge fund Long Term Capital Management blew up--and very nearly brought down the U.S. financial system with it. The idea that its activities might pose a danger infuriates Fannie Mae, which describes itself as "a bulwark of our financial system." For some of its critics, though, Fannie's refusal to acknowledge that its portfolio posed any risk would become the scariest thing of all.
That was written in 2005, BTW.

Anyway, even leaving aside the private market, we can dip into the congressional testimony video where Congress repeatedly shrugged off warnings about what was coming down the road for the supposedly 'regulated' Government Sponsored housing entities.

But our Unicornian Utopian Progressives will continue to tell us if we just leave everything up to Dawd, Fwank and Fwends (again) nothing bad will ever happen.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 01:50 PM   #103
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 53,894
Default

^

There you go proving once again that facts don't matter to the average right-wing ideologue.

Meanwhile, here in the real world...

Quote:
Federal Reserve Board data show that:

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 01:58 PM   #104
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,100

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
^

There you go proving once again that facts don't matter to the average right-wing ideologue.

Meanwhile, here in the real world...
The WSJ article sums it up best...

Quote:
In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent.

Now the Democrats are blaming the financial crisis on "deregulation." This is a canard.
You want to ignore the fact that your Government miracle workers didn't even properly rein in the Government Sponsored Entities they had oversight authority over. Yet you're saying they would've kept everything else in line, if only given limitless power to regulate whatever whenever.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 05:59 PM   #105
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,926
Default

Want to know how many bad loans greedy banks KNOWINGLY sold to the American Taxpayers? You think they would have made these loans if they couldn't dump them on American taxpayers? Not hardly.



"In January 2011, Bank of America agreed to a $1.35 billion settlement with Freddie, but that deal included only loans sold by Countrywide. Bank of America's $11.6 billion agreement with Fannie earlier this year included $6.7 billion in loan repurchases. That followed a smaller $1.5 billion deal with Fannie in 2011.

During the third quarter, Freddie reached settlements with Wells Fargo, Citigroup Inc., and SunTrust Banks Inc. worth $1.3 billion combined. Last month, J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to pay $1.1 billion to resolve such claims."



Again, these banks NEVER would have made these risky loans had they not KNOWN that they could SELL these loans to American Taxpayers (Fannie and Freddie), via government programs to socialize losses in the mortgage lending industry.

Libertarians are explicitly AGAINST making American Taxpayers liable to greedy banks and their shady lending practices.

Progressive Socialists are not only IN FAVOR of American taxpayer liability in the mortgage industry, but they heavily promote it, while expanding FHA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae....encouraging banks to sell toxic paper to American taxpayers.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 09:08 PM   #106
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 53,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post

Libertarians are explicitly AGAINST making American Taxpayers liable to greedy banks and their shady lending practices.
.


Quite possibly the funniest statement I've ever read here.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 09:10 PM   #107
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 53,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The WSJ article sums it up best...
A WSJ op-ed....now there's an unbiased source.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 10:29 PM   #108
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,958

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The WSJ article sums it up best...
You want to ignore the fact that your Government miracle workers didn't even properly rein in the Government Sponsored Entities they had oversight authority over. Yet you're saying they would've kept everything else in line, if only given limitless power to regulate whatever whenever.
The regulation that would have prevented the problem WAS in place, but was removed. Glass-Steagall and sane reserve requirements. The banks lobbied to get these regulations removed, and then proceeded to go hog wild.

It's pretty simple. With a sane 12:1 reserve requirement, 8% of mortgages would have had to been in default before the bank would have become insolvent. Instead, that reserve requirement was abolished for the big banks, and they all quickly ramped up to an average of 50:1 leveraging, meaning that only 2% of mortgages had to be in default before the bank became insolvent.

The default rate never got about 4%, even in the worse of the crash.

In other words, with SANE REGULATION REMAINING IN PLACE there would still have been a 4% buffer and the major banks would not have become insolvent from mortgage problems alone.


Of course, with Glass Steagall in place, even the insolvency of the investment banks would have been perhaps manageable, since commercial banks would not have been affected, and YOUR money would have been safe from the insanity going on in the mortgage market. Of course, without that bit of SANE REGULATION, we had no choice but to bail out banks since it's not just the investment banks that go under, it's everyone that has a deposit with those banks since there is no longer a separate between investment and commercial banking.

But, keep up with your stupid commentary. It's quite entertaining to watch you desperately try to defend deregulation and pretend the private sector wasn't the problem.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 07:35 AM   #109
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,100

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Hey, if the government's reaction had been.... "Well I guess maybe we went too far changing a system that seemed pretty stable for 70 years, let's reverse course a bit and reenact some of those protections" I could see where you were coming from.

Instead we got the Dawd Fwank Fwiends of Angewo package that didn't really solve anything

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedkaufm...m-gets-bigger/

(except of course give us yet another new unaccountable federal regulatory army)

The Government uses virtually every opportunity to expand its reach. Even in cases where it was 100% complicit in the problem to begin with.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 05:38 PM   #110
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,515
Default

In a libertarian society, corporations wouldn't exist.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 05:39 PM   #111
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,926
Default

The U.S. Federal Government, knowing that new-home building has been a significant component of a growing economy has been subsidizing the mortgage industry, and inflating housing rates for quite sometime.

Some of the tools used:
1. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
3. Mortgage interest tax deduction
4. Interest rate manipulation from the FED
5. Subprime lending mandates
6. First Time Homebuyers Tax Credit
7. Creation of FHA (3.5% down requirement)
8. Purchasing Trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities

Now, American taxpayers are on the hook for >$5T (debt on Fannie and Freddie balance sheet).

Federal government intervention has caused MASSIVE inflation and speculation in the housing sector, and is precisely what caused the crash in '06...and the current run-up in prices.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 05:58 PM   #112
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,869

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
The U.S. Federal Government, knowing that new-home building has been a significant component of a growing economy has been subsidizing the mortgage industry, and inflating housing rates for quite sometime.

Some of the tools used:
1. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
3. Mortgage interest tax deduction
4. Interest rate manipulation from the FED
5. Subprime lending mandates
6. First Time Homebuyers Tax Credit
7. Creation of FHA (3.5% down requirement)
8. Purchasing Trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities

Now, American taxpayers are on the hook for >$5T (debt on Fannie and Freddie balance sheet).

Federal government intervention has caused MASSIVE inflation and speculation in the housing sector, and is precisely what caused the crash in '06...and the current run-up in prices.
They also subsidize agriculture, energy, automotive, aeronautics, pretty much everything having to do with military technology, railways, etc. etc. etc.

My point being, have all those sectors crashed? No. Did any of them have a massive, bogus derivatives market riding their backs while placing bets on their every transaction? No.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 11-13-2013 at 08:03 AM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 09:22 PM   #113
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
They also subsidize agriculture, energy, automotive, aeronautics, pretty much everything having to do with military technology, railways, etc. etc. etc.

My point being, have all those sectors crashed? No. Did any of them have a massive, bogus derivatives market riding their backs while placing bets on their every transaction? No.
1. Housing is an over-inflated asset driven high by speculation and federal guarantees, hence the crash.
2. Government subsidies should be eliminated from agriculture. Paying farmers not to farm in order to increase the price of grain is insane (and costly).
3. The American taxpayers purchase Defense technology from private contractors. If taxpayer funding is cut, there are layoffs (Lockheed 4,000 as we speak).
4. Education costs have been inflated through the roof with taxpayer subsidies.
5. Energy subsidies should be eliminated. In fact much of the subsidies have been to failed businesses.

I am not promoting to remove the 'safety net'. Merely remove government spending from the private sector to keep costs low (free-market principles).
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2013, 04:46 AM   #114
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,725

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Poverty is another subject that isn't really important issue until it can be blamed on those evil republicans and the evil corporations that don't donate money to democrats.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2013, 09:10 AM   #115
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barryr View Post
Poverty is another subject that isn't really important issue until it can be blamed on those evil republicans and the evil corporations that don't donate money to democrats.
The massive increase in wealth disparity that has occurred under the Obama administration can be entirely attributed the big government policies of stimulus and quantitative easing.

In the last 5 years, ALL assets have been priced out of the range of average Americans. The longer current policy prevails, the wider the gap will get.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2013, 04:11 PM   #116
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,725

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
The massive increase in wealth disparity that has occurred under the Obama administration can be entirely attributed the big government policies of stimulus and quantitative easing.

In the last 5 years, ALL assets have been priced out of the range of average Americans. The longer current policy prevails, the wider the gap will get.
Which goes to show the democrats stating they are the "party for the little guy" is just plain a myth and has been for years.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2013, 04:32 PM   #117
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,027

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
The massive increase in wealth disparity that has occurred under the Obama administration can be entirely attributed the big government policies of stimulus and quantitative easing.

In the last 5 years, ALL assets have been priced out of the range of average Americans. The longer current policy prevails, the wider the gap will get.
what crap! wealth disparity? you're talking about the policys such as the GWB tax cuts. the constant push to lower taxes on the rich and the anti-union stance you conservatives push. the fight against raising the minimum wage.
this wealth disparity is your baby,take responsibility for it.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2013, 04:35 PM   #118
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,027

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2013, 04:37 PM   #119
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barryr View Post
Which goes to show the democrats stating they are the "party for the little guy" is just plain a myth and has been for years.
Yes because things like the Great Society and New Deal, or ObamaCare are myths.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2013, 06:39 PM   #120
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,869

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
Yes because things like the Great Society and New Deal, or ObamaCare are myths.
I don't believe that either Obama nor Clinton have any connection to those programs. Chris Hedges is absolutely right. They are "faux" liberals. The Dem party is run by them. They have nothing in common with the Dems that wrote those programs. Clinton was the worst thing that ever happened to wage earning Americans. And Obama, as Hedges points out, has "codified" all the garbage Bush launched after running on the promise of taking apart the abysmal Bush legacy. Like Hedges points out, we are living under an inverted totalitarianism ruled by an entrenched corporate plutocracy.

Clinton and Obama are tools of that status quo. TR and FDR would have fought it tooth and nail. TR properly labeled it, "In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will."

This is also why it's really stupid to broad brush the Dems with the name of liberal, or liberal progressive. There are truly only a handful of liberal progressives left in the Dem party. I'm surprised they don't leave, like Bernie Sanders, and just declare themselves independents.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2013, 07:47 PM   #121
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
Yes because things like the Great Society and New Deal, or ObamaCare are myths.
The New Deal's record peacetime deficit spending was great short-term for the depressed 1930s. They made a deal to borrow future consumption to support their present depression. Some of the New Deal programs were supposed to expire like the Bush tax cuts, but they've been in place now for over 70 years. It's not such a good deal because we didn't keep up the other end of the deal. The future cost of these New Deal programs is more than 50 trillion today.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2013, 03:02 AM   #122
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,869

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
The New Deal's record peacetime deficit spending was great short-term for the depressed 1930s. They made a deal to borrow future consumption to support their present depression. Some of the New Deal programs were supposed to expire like the Bush tax cuts, but they've been in place now for over 70 years. It's not such a good deal because we didn't keep up the other end of the deal. The future cost of these New Deal programs is more than 50 trillion today.
And a lot of that stuff was predicated on the continued existence of the progressive tax system. Once Reagan gave the richest sector of the population a 50% tax cut, many of the programs began to fail. Of course, that was the whole point of doing it, wasn't it?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2013, 04:34 AM   #123
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,725

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
Yes because things like the Great Society and New Deal, or ObamaCare are myths.
Yeah, all of them which such great success.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2013, 05:14 AM   #124
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
The New Deal's record peacetime deficit spending was great short-term for the depressed 1930s. They made a deal to borrow future consumption to support their present depression. Some of the New Deal programs were supposed to expire like the Bush tax cuts, but they've been in place now for over 70 years. It's not such a good deal because we didn't keep up the other end of the deal. The future cost of these New Deal programs is more than 50 trillion today.
I agree things to needs to be looked at and some laws need to sunset-ed as economic situations have changed. Most of our farming policies are based upon New Deal policies of not growing things, or provide water for farming for areas that shouldn't get it, or how we lease out our mineral rights to the private sector. But I was respond to Barry's post that people only care about the poor when they can blame Republicans for it.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2013, 08:00 AM   #125
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
Don't piss off Manning.
 
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun's Avatar
 
Time to believe!

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gensis Planet
Posts: 6,511

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C.J. Anderson
Default

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:26 PM.


Denver Broncos