tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post1499339160118014666..comments2023-11-02T03:10:39.674-07:00Comments on GeeeeeZ!: OWS's rapsheet...and please read the articles below it, too...Tea Parties are being blamed for the White House shooter??!Zhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-39125418634323695812011-11-22T17:12:09.374-08:002011-11-22T17:12:09.374-08:00And yes social security is a Ponzi scheme.
Defini...And yes social security is a Ponzi scheme.<br /><br />Definition of the wikipedia: "A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation"<br /><br />It's exactly what it is. <br />Especially when it's financed through IOUs and when the money we put it goes to the general funds.<br /><br />A private broker or bank would do that and people would ask for their heads on a stick.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-92139263636304628132011-11-22T17:10:09.193-08:002011-11-22T17:10:09.193-08:00Yield on a 20 year Treasury, 3% Edit. 3% apy.
So ...<i>Yield on a 20 year Treasury, 3% Edit. 3% apy.</i><br /><br />So yes. nothing minus inflation. Unless of course, you calculate inflation the way the gov does it: without food and necessity cost increases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-43384834354236804932011-11-22T17:09:09.401-08:002011-11-22T17:09:09.401-08:00You asked why "the money is not kept safely i...<i>You asked why "the money is not kept safely in a bank?</i><br /><br />Do you only under explicit writing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-23129854191274237072011-11-22T10:02:31.794-08:002011-11-22T10:02:31.794-08:00Yield on a 20 year Treasury, 3% Edit. 3% apy.<i>Yield on a 20 year Treasury, 3%</i> Edit. 3% apy.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124629994153584904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-4126705572751448592011-11-22T09:56:10.639-08:002011-11-22T09:56:10.639-08:00What ignorance. Safe doesn't mean good return....<i>What ignorance. Safe doesn't mean good return...And Craig you missed my point about social security and greed and dishonesty. So re-read my post and answer accurately. That is if you can.</i><br /><br />Are there greedy and dishonest people in govt? Absolutely. Is SS greedy and dishonest? Absolutely not.<br /><br />The premise of your question is screwed up. Calling it a scheme? As in Ponzi scheme? It's not. Maybe you should reread your post. You asked why <b>"the money is not kept safely in a bank?</b> Banks are "safe" to the extent that your deposit is insured by the federal govt. You said nothing about "good return" in your question. SS is not a retirement investment program, it's an insurance program. An enormously successful one. Never missed a payment and is currently $2.5T in the black. The cost to administer is about 1.5%. <br /><br />Interest rates on a bank money market account is less than 2% apy. Savings account, less than 1% apy. Yield on a 20 year Treasury, 3%. So, you're wrong about that too. The alternative is to risk it on the market and blow 15% on broker fees. Then it ain't insurance anymore.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124629994153584904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-57592857414004676632011-11-22T07:49:45.994-08:002011-11-22T07:49:45.994-08:00Psst, I know Monckton isn't a scientist....he ...Psst, I know Monckton isn't a scientist....he couldn't have been one and worked with Gore like he had until he woke up.<br /><br />And I love discussion, too (it's why I blog), but you have a smarmy attitude, a way of pulling someone in and then insulting which has always sat ill with me in everyone else like that,too. You probably don't even see it. <br />I hope not.Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-73595455901502139612011-11-21T08:58:21.031-08:002011-11-21T08:58:21.031-08:00And Craig you missed my point about social securit...And Craig you missed my point about social security and greed and dishonesty. So re-read my post and answer accurately. That is if you can.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-50726570028520318152011-11-21T08:57:24.874-08:002011-11-21T08:57:24.874-08:00The safest investment in the world is a U.S. Treas...<i>The safest investment in the world is a U.S. Treasury Security. Ask your broker.</i><br /><br />What ignorance. Safe doesn't mean good return. Minus inflation the treasury security isn't worth much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-84864521079322862122011-11-21T05:13:11.805-08:002011-11-21T05:13:11.805-08:00Craig, don't get so angry; it's not good f...<i>Craig, don't get so angry; it's not good for you, and people don't REALLY have to agree with you to make you valid.</i><br /><br />What makes you think I'm angry? I enjoy a good debate. I get the feeling that disagreement upsets you. Or, upsets your ideology. Facts are stubborn. <br /><br />Psst. *not shouting* "Lord" Monckton isn't a scientist. He did cure AIDS, though.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124629994153584904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-44706735963274805272011-11-21T05:00:14.967-08:002011-11-21T05:00:14.967-08:00Mortgage companies were also subject to the HMDA r...<i>Mortgage companies were also subject to the HMDA regulations. </i><br /><br />HMDA reporting is to make sure lenders aren't discriminating against qualified borrowers based on race, gender, religion, etc. It doesn't lower standards for lending.<br /><br /><i>Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then made it PROFITABLE for the lender to make bad loans.</i><br /><br />They weren't buying bad loans and that is why their market share dropped. It wasn't until the share holders pressured them that they increased their % of subs and Alt-A (yeah, less risky than subs but still non conforming). You said yourself that, "The company then sold off the loans to other <b>bigger banks</b>". They were chopped up by private label mortgage backed securities and F&F bought some. So did hundreds of other institutions around the world. <br /><br /><i>If you don't believe Franklin Raines was in bed with Maxine Waters and Barney Frank, you're living in fantasy land.</i><br /><br />Agreed, along with half of Congress. Both parties. The video you linked to was from hearings on accounting practices. Do you really think the housing collapse was an accounting problem?<br /><br /><i>But, hey, let's just hang all the bankers </i><br /><br />Just the guilty ones. Some serious investigations from Holders' Justice would be a start.<br /><br /><i>Additionally, no-doc loans were not made to sub-prime borrowers.</i><br /><br />Huh? I'll let <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/02/return-liar-loans-personal-finance-no-doc.html" rel="nofollow">Forbes</a> tell it, they're kinda in the business,<br /><br /><b>In the height of the housing boom in 2006 and 2007, low-doc loans accounted for roughly 40% of newly issued mortgages in the U.S., according to mortgage-data firm FirstAmerican CoreLogic. University of Chicago assistant professor Amit Seru says that for subprime loans, the portion exceeded 50%. </b>Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124629994153584904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-80038770122547916492011-11-21T01:17:05.339-08:002011-11-21T01:17:05.339-08:00Craig, don't speak for me, please.
And PLEASE ...Craig, don't speak for me, please.<br />And PLEASE READ RITA'S INFORMATION. man.<br /><br />As for climate change, will people EVER realize that it's less that there ARE climate changes in the world happening most of us disagree with (nice subject change, by the way...you don't really need to illustrate; it's like you're speaking LOUDER to get the dopes to agree with you?)...most of us disagree with WHY there's climate change than IF there are the very obvious climate changes (many of which are repeats of 'changes' within the last 100 years). <br />Seems like every time there's a record climate problem, there's also the info that this happened the last time in 1918. <br />Also, most of those scientists not agreeing with your opinions are pretty darned excellent scientists who add not only their information but how sad and sickened they are by their colleagues who have joined the Al Gore bunch; one being Lord Monckton, who'd worked with him previously.<br />And no, I won't respond to this anymore; my subject is NOT climate change here but I couldn't let you go on and on so assuredly; my GOD, MUST you always be so right in your own mind?<br /><br />Craig, don't get so angry; it's not good for you, and people don't REALLY have to agree with you to make you valid.Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-63637764566686315332011-11-20T21:03:08.025-08:002011-11-20T21:03:08.025-08:00And to be clear, Alt-A loans were not sub-prime. ...And to be clear, Alt-A loans were not sub-prime. They were a step below prime loans, which meant they were likely decent loans to be made to some borrowers whose credit wasn't pristine. I've not studied the default rates on Alt-A loans, but I would be shocked if they were anywhere near the rates of true sub-prime loans.<br /><br />Additionally, no-doc loans were not made to sub-prime borrowers. I know because I have a no-doc mortgage on our vacation home. No-docs required pristine credit and FICO scores well into the 700's. No-docs only meant the underwriting did not include verification of income, employment or assets because the credit report and FICO score indicated the borrow paid their bills on time, all the time.<br /><br />I opted for the no-doc loan because my husband was self-employed at the time and we did not want to hassle with the documentation of having to prove his income by supplying several years of tax returns. <br /><br />If there were companies that wrote no-doc loans on anything but prime loans, I sure didn't find them.<br /><br />In every industry you will find those low-lifes who commit fraud and outright embezzlement. I know that too, because most of the years I worked in banks were as a director of internal audit. I caught, reported and prosecuted a half dozen banking criminals. They were the petty criminals and it was never a wide-spread conspiracy.Ritahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03121530659338322937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-15719339889496586422011-11-20T19:40:47.439-08:002011-11-20T19:40:47.439-08:00Thirty years in banking, seven years at a mortgage...Thirty years in banking, seven years at a mortgage company Craig. And it wasn't JUST the CRA that was promoting loans to unworthy borrowers. Mortgage companies were also subject to the HMDA regulations. <br /><br />All of these supposed worthy regulations were to make sure the uncreditworthy borrowers were not being discriminated against. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then made it PROFITABLE for the lender to make bad loans.<br /><br />If you want to find the real problem, look in the portfolios of the Congress critters that were telling the regulators there was nothing wrong when the system was about to buckle.<br /><br />If you don't believe Franklin Raines was in bed with Maxine Waters and Barney Frank, you're living in fantasy land. <br /><br />The corruption began in Washington and spread throughout the mortgage industry.<br /><br />But, hey, let's just hang all the bankers because Waters would rather you be diverted from you realizing that her husband was director of a bank that ended up getting $12MM in TARP money through her influence.Ritahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03121530659338322937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-39445982941795410722011-11-20T17:36:02.515-08:002011-11-20T17:36:02.515-08:00Is social security an honest scheme when the money...<i>Is social security an honest scheme when the money is not kept safely in a bank?</i><br /><br />You're kidding, right? Because banks are rock solid, never fail. If they do, they're backed by the FEDERAL Deposit Insurance Corp. That would be the federal govt. Oops. Frog, you're smarter than that.<br /><br />The safest investment in the world is a U.S. Treasury Security. Ask your broker.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124629994153584904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-67796705186486988632011-11-20T17:34:57.207-08:002011-11-20T17:34:57.207-08:00ah, yes, craig...Rita was in the business for year...<i>ah, yes, craig...Rita was in the business for years but you know better :-)<br /><br />that kind of hubris always cracks me up.</i><br /><br />Z, I've actually researched what "people in the business" and people who know the business and have analyzed what the business did. I commented on Rita's claim that her co. gave a mortgage refi to someone with $90k in credit card debt. Good for the borrower, insane for the lender. Unless they can pass the risk off to the next sucker, which is what happened.<br /><br />Not trying to change the subject but maybe you'll see my point. 97% of published climate scientists, people in the business, agree the earth is warming at an alarming rate (in geologic time), it's 95% certain to be caused by human activity and is likely to cause major disruptions and possibly catastrophic changes. You are sure, without a doubt, that it's a hoax. And you want to tell me about hubris?Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124629994153584904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-27381928820922697622011-11-20T17:33:59.064-08:002011-11-20T17:33:59.064-08:00Rita, I agree, there is plenty blame to go around...Rita, I agree, there is plenty blame to go around. My point is, someone with $90k in credit card debt is a huge risk to a lender. Mortgage originators, like yours, would have never made those kinds of loans if they were assuming the risk. Many mortgage co.s, maybe not yours, were pushing people into sub primes with teaser rates, interest-only, negative amortization, no down, no doc mortgages. <br /><br />The GSE's, Fannie and Freddie, had underwriting standards for conforming loans that drove lenders to private label securities. Fannie and Freddies market share dropped in the mid aughts. Your video mash up was on hearings about the accounting practices of F & F. Not one word about sub primes. Lot's of talk about capital/asset ratio and manipulating earnings. The result was Franklin Raines and a couple officers paying back $114M in bogus bonus money. Not chump change but not the catalyst of the housing collapse.<br /><br />Because of dwindling market share, it was pressure from investors, not govt., that pushed F&F into sub primes and Alt-A's. That was well into 2006-07, long after the party started. F&F's hands are dirty but they didn't cause the mess. <br /><br />Sure, some people are greedy and irresponsible but many more were victims of dishonest predatory lenders. It was the bankers and Wall Street that chopped up the mortgages and sold them over and over when they knew it was junk. It was the rating houses that profited by giving that junk AAA ratings. It was the synthetic derivatives like collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps. Unregulated, thanks to Phil Gramm and The Commodity Futures Modernization Act. In 2007 the outstanding CDS amount was $62.2 trillion (the GDP of the world), it fell to $26.3 trillion by 2010. $36T in gambling debts, gone. That's why the world was on the brink of financial collapse.<br /><br />The bankers, knowing they were selling junk, hedged with CDS's and betting the securities would default. That was criminal, a felony. I'm a non partisan critic. Obama, Geitner, Summers, Rubin, they've done nothing. Holder's done nothing. Those crooks belong in jail.<br /><br />Folks like Bob have bought the propaganda that it was the Community Reinvestment Act and govt. forcing banks to make bad loans. That is demonstrably false. Over half of sub primes originated with mortgage lending co.s, like Rita's, that aren't subject to CRA. Only 6% of sub primes were originated under CRA. They performed equally with all other sub primes, meaning a fraction of those defaulted. So, less than 3%(I'm being generous here) of the bad loans were CRA and that dragged the entire world economy into near collapse? I don't think so.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124629994153584904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-23264264346258425182011-11-20T11:36:35.651-08:002011-11-20T11:36:35.651-08:00You're right Z.
Minimum wage for doing nothin...You're right Z.<br /><br />Minimum wage for doing nothing is extremely greedy. And on top of that it's lazy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-14153952840341384482011-11-20T10:02:09.920-08:002011-11-20T10:02:09.920-08:00Rita, that video's so upsetting on so many lev...Rita, that video's so upsetting on so many levels; not the least of which being that most Americans have never seen it or its implications.<br />The media's in overdrive protection of their party.<br /><br />VOTE DEMOCRAT, says the media...WE'LL PICK THE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE..says the media by giving less time to those THEY deem unable to compete.<br /><br />and on and on and on.<br /><br />thanks for that, RitaZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-21131008131093982632011-11-20T10:00:05.611-08:002011-11-20T10:00:05.611-08:00"Craig, greed and dishonesty is not a bank or..."Craig, greed and dishonesty is not a bank or company monopoly."<br /><br />So are the OWS thugs, FrogBurger; they want what they want and don't even consider where it's coming from.Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-39373721765092049772011-11-20T09:41:14.769-08:002011-11-20T09:41:14.769-08:00Craig, greed and dishonesty is not a bank or compa...Craig, greed and dishonesty is not a bank or company monopoly.<br /><br />The gov is dishonest and greedy, except that when it is we don't have a say aside from elections.<br /><br />Is social security an honest scheme when the money is not kept safely in a bank?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-8655953763589072602011-11-20T08:05:07.673-08:002011-11-20T08:05:07.673-08:00Oh, I am so completely wrong. Here is the evidenc...Oh, I am so completely wrong. Here is the evidence of all those corrupt evil bankers.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7RsRitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03121530659338322937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-43336196913416878302011-11-20T07:30:32.176-08:002011-11-20T07:30:32.176-08:00Fine, the company was "greedy". Blame t...Fine, the company was "greedy". Blame the mortgage company or the banks. But there was/is plenty of blame to go around.<br /><br />Did the borrower who racked up 90k in credit card bills, mostly at stores like Macy's, Sears, etc have any culpability in the greed? <br /><br />So the borrow owned a $400k house with a current $200k mortgage. With the $90k monthly credit card payments, most over 20%, why would it NOT make sense for the borrower to pay off those loans by refinancing their home with a 5% mortgage? Their interest went down and their monthly payments went down substantially. <br /><br />As I said, the fallacy in the lending in such a situation is that too many of those folks simply went right back out and racked up their credit cards AGAIN. Instead of learning their lesson of overspending and cutting up their cards, they continued being irresponsible.<br /><br />Of course the sub-prime industry lent to people they should not have, I am not arguing that. But equally responsible were the quasi-governmental agencies incenting companies to do just that. And equally responsible were the borrowers who were irresponsible. <br /><br />My parents drilled fiscal responsibility into our heads, they never owned a credit card and they bought their one and only brand new car when they were in their 50's and paid for it in cash. <br /><br />Today, everyone thinks they need to have a new house, new furniture, the latest 3D TV, two brand new cars in the driveway and the latest IPhone and not pay for anything with cash.Ritahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03121530659338322937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-78005420566721628632011-11-20T07:30:17.712-08:002011-11-20T07:30:17.712-08:00ah, yes, craig...Rita was in the business for year...ah, yes, craig...Rita was in the business for years but you know better :-)<br /><br />that kind of hubris always cracks me up.Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-1667519752914994342011-11-20T04:52:56.328-08:002011-11-20T04:52:56.328-08:00I can tell you from experience, they were not evil...<i>I can tell you from experience, they were not evil,</i><br /><br />Just greedy and dishonest.<br /><br /><i>I remember one loan where the refi included NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS in credit card payoffs.</i><br /><br />Why the hell would your co. give a loan to someone 90k in debt? They knew it was junk when they sold it on the secondary mortgage market. The big banks knew it was junk and bet against their own securities with default swaps.<br /><br />They all knew they were selling junk but there was profit to be made and screw the counter party holding the bag when it all goes to hell. You and I get to bail them out because they're too big to fail.<br /><br />Bob, Govt. did not force Rita's co. to make those bad loans. Rita's co. was not subject to CRA.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124629994153584904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-32166753616238298142011-11-19T22:16:18.200-08:002011-11-19T22:16:18.200-08:00Kid, welcome to geeeZ...I'll be by you soon, t...Kid, welcome to geeeZ...I'll be by you soon, too. thanks!<br /><br />FrogBurger, that "LOL" comment is FUNNY!<br /><br /><br />Man, hasn't RITA filled us all in on some great information?<br />THANKS, RITA!Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.com