Nice side step. Answer the question.Originally Posted by swede
Should the media have spanked the right for Gramm's role?
Nice side step. Answer the question.
Should the media have spanked the right for Gramm's role?
I thought I had answered the question about whether or not the financial crisis was "bs" and/or "caused by the left."
I do believe the credit crunch really was caused by government tinkering in a goodhearted attempt to offer mortgages to everyone who wanted one.
I don't think the market drop and the looming recession were ipso facto caused by the left since we were due for a down cycle anyway, but the failure of major financial institutions and the ensuing credit crunch kind of gave that ball of sh!t a nice big push downhill.
You'll have to help me out with the Gramm question. Did he do something bad?
[QUOTE=George Cumby] ...every draft (Ted) would pick a solid, dependable, smart, athletically limited linebacker...the guy who isn't doing drugs, going to strip bars, knocking around his girlfriend or making any plays of game changing significance.
I guess i don't understand...unless you are saying that the gov't is completely under control of the left.
Tex's position is that the whole crisis is bogus..concocted by the left to ultimately drive voters to the dem party. Do you believe that?
Gramm: Do a little research on the 1999 Gramm Dereg Act.
In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed 1930's legislation that had separated commercial and investment banks. Commercial banks, where people deposit their paychecks and do personal banking, have regulation. Investment banks didn't have that "fettering" as Republicans saw it.
With the 1930's Glass-Steagall Act repealed, the theory was competition could happen now in financial services. The evil enemy of regulation was gone, free markets would reign. Mergers happened that couldn't before. A broader range of institutions could offer a broader range of products. Which grew to include obscure, unregulated financial products with no collateral to support them. Like sub-prime mortgages. Regulated banks couldn't take those kinds of risks. Unregulated companies could.
OK, Tyrone. You got me. Sarcasm or not? I can't believe you are serious, but you do sound serious--especially in trying to play some weird "moral equivalence" game of the war with the financial "crisis".
First of all, either you are spinning what I said or I didn't say it clearly enough. Just this one time, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What I SHOULD HAVE SAID is that the "crisis mentality" is contrived.
The facts are what they are. There was a drop in real estate values--in some parts of the country, certainly not all or even most of it. Some mortgages lost value--but not all of the value even in the worst cases, as there was the security of devalued real estate which still did have value at a reduced figure. The big mortgage insurers took a beating, even though that should not have been the case because the properties and therefore the mortgages they owned were only devalued, not worthless. All of that could hardly have been contrived by the left.
My position, though, is that the number/percentage of people affected by those things is miniscule. Yet we have leftists from Obama on down ranting about how bad things are--similar to the Great Depression, and enough of the people bought the lie that Obama got elected. It is the PANIC that is contrived--the massive con that was successfully perpetrated on people to get Obama elected.
Now I suppose if your line above is serious, you would claim the same thing for getting America into war in Iraq. I would ask, Why? What motivation could the Bush Administration have for conjuring up bogus justifications for the war? To bolster Bush's chances in the 2004 election? I doubt it. He was already popular, and the war would have been a risky thing politically, so why do it for bogus reasons? And besides, Bush is too stupid for a grandiose scheme like that--isn't that the line you guys keep pushing?
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Was Bush, who proposed the bailout, also in on the con?
Yawn. Most Senators of both parties and Clinton supported the passage of the bill. They must have thought it was a good idea. If the subprime mortgages hadn't been pushed, there would have been nowhere near the amount of toxic securities out there. Less risk, both for companies or countries, etc, who peddled or bought the securities.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
We've gone thru this many times. Yet, you continue to lie.Yawn. Most Senators of both parties and Clinton supported the passage of the bill. They must have thought it was a good idea. If the subprime mortgages hadn't been pushed, there would have been nowhere near the amount of toxic securities out there. Less risk, both for companies or countries, etc, who peddled or bought the securities.
Clinton didn't sign?We've gone thru this many times. Yet, you continue to lie.Yawn. Most Senators of both parties and Clinton supported the passage of the bill. They must have thought it was a good idea. If the subprime mortgages hadn't been pushed, there would have been nowhere near the amount of toxic securities out there. Less risk, both for companies or countries, etc, who peddled or bought the securities.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Good question.
The "Con", as I have stated, was the convincing people of the seriousness of the situation, when it really wasn't all that big a deal, on Main Street, anyway.
Bush and Paulson and Senate Republicans and the Wall Street beneficiaries ALL had to be in on the effort to get the bailout. Obviously, those people, however, would not have been trying to get Obama elected.
I would suggest that SOMEBODY BIG has a whole lot to gain financially from this "bailout". That may well be a separate conspiracy, and yeah, maybe Bush might be in on it.
As for the con of the people to see the situation as important enough to their lives to vote for Obama, and in particular, to repeat incessantly the idea that the economic issue was so important, THAT was all the leftist politicians and mainstream media--and they were damn effective in that con.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Do you want to rethink this? Maybe type something else? It kind of makes everything else you say useless.
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
HOFer
You guys keep saying "pushed." All these companies needed was permission and my mailbox cried for all the trees that died and the weight of all the mortgage ads. My phone rang off the hook with people offering me a mortgage at only 1% interest (for 6 months and then we raise it to 26%) Yes that's an exaggeration, but not by much.Yawn. Most Senators of both parties and Clinton supported the passage of the bill. They must have thought it was a good idea. If the subprime mortgages hadn't been pushed, there would have been nowhere near the amount of toxic securities out there. Less risk, both for companies or countries, etc, who peddled or bought the securities.
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
and, that just sums up why there wont' be an honest discussion.Do you want to rethink this? Maybe type something else? It kind of makes everything else you say useless.
Since when have you EVER been about an HONEST discussion, Tyrone.and, that just sums up why there wont' be an honest discussion.Do you want to rethink this? Maybe type something else? It kind of makes everything else you say useless.
What I think Howard is saying (although you never really know with Howard) is it is pure unadulterated ignorance to refer to sub-prime mortgages as "financial products with no collateral to support them".
While the collateral may become a lot more relevant because of less qualified buyers, and while the collateral may be devalued in some geographic areas due to decreasing real estate values, the simple fact is, ALL mortgages are secured by collateral--the real estate financed.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
It's pretty simple... you can't outleft the lefties.
America will continue down the path of socialism until it dies... I've known this for many years, my only hope has been that I live out my days before the end arrives.
The Republicans, to compete with the Democrats, will have to adopt ever leftist policies... for those of us who value freedom, there is nowhere left to run.
Would love to see a secessionist movement... the promise of freedom. Never happen though. Those of us who don't agree, we go along, or pay the price... hardly sounds like freedom to me.
wist
Didn't they try this in Montana a few years ago?
Exactly Tex. See, I'm not that tough to understand.Since when have you EVER been about an HONEST discussion, Tyrone.and, that just sums up why there wont' be an honest discussion.Do you want to rethink this? Maybe type something else? It kind of makes everything else you say useless.
What I think Howard is saying (although you never really know with Howard) is it is pure unadulterated ignorance to refer to sub-prime mortgages as "financial products with no collateral to support them".
While the collateral may become a lot more relevant because of less qualified buyers, and while the collateral may be devalued in some geographic areas due to decreasing real estate values, the simple fact is, ALL mortgages are secured by collateral--the real estate financed.
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
Not true..the very rich are seceding. They are moving their wealth to other places where the USSRA can't get at it. In many cases they are moving jobs too. See rich people are funny that way....tax the shit out of them and they take their ball and go home. Some will remain, actually the most talented difference makers will. But so many of the lower upper class won't....and they provide the grease in the economy. A gates or a buffet can withstand the taxes, but the guy who makes 1million a year can't. He moves his wealth and/or business anyway he can...and he is more important to the countries success than Ted Turner.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote