Hello world!
5 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
remember
Andrew Breitbart...American Hero
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
An Epidemic Of Biden3 years ago
-
-
FOR ME - MORE BLOG LESS F B2 years ago
-
Chinese Man O' War1 year ago
-
No Politics Here1 year ago
-
The Bloodiest Battle — Part 24 days ago
-
His Name Was Charles3 years ago
-
-
Italy part 27 months ago
-
Project Reconquista Commences9 years ago
-
Sorta Makes You Wanna Cry...8 years ago
-
-
-
-
Mr. AOW Has Gone Home3 years ago
-
-
-
-
Wow. I Lost Myself5 years ago
-
-
-
-
VALENTINES DAY! :-)4 years ago
22 comments:
No caption but I do love it.
Keep it up, boys...just ignore the screams of those small folks.
"Americans risking their lively hood to save crooks."
Caption:
"Shouldn't we be using bottled water?"
The cartoon is accurate, and it was written by a leftist or a populist. The firemen are doing the right thing believe it not. I know that's not a popular thing to say, but it's true!
To start with, I'm not convinced that we SHOULD have done a bailout, but since we INSIST on squandering hard-earned taxpayer wealth, we need to put that money where it will do the most good. Injecting liquidity into the market is the answer and that's what Paulsen seems to be doing.
If you're a homeowner who has decided not to pay his mortgage for whatever reason, you DON'T DESERVE the wealth of another man. The fact that Paulsen has infuriated Maxine Waters is a WONDERFUL indication that he's done something right! People who have lost their homes should RENT, instead of empowering the government to act as an instrument of plunder against those who conduct themselves more responsibly! Personally I could care less what the sob story happens to be, that's what RENT is all about.
I've been there, BELIEVE me. The thought of asking BIG BROTHER to take money from someone else to make me whole is ABHORENT in the extreme! What happened to that mindset?
Morgan
All those nasty deadbeats, eh Morgan. Taking your money, how rude.
Of course as foreclosures mount and home values drop closer to the foreclosure price they are also taking your money.
Funny thing about Randoids, they have no concept of co-operation and even less feel for game theory.
Well, this one may give you insight into why lending regulation was a smart idea and why Mr. Bubble Greenspan was culprit NUMBER 1 in this mess for not requiring enforcement when that was well within his powers.
So you bet wrong and then you whine. I see that a lot on the right. You guys always want a free lunch when your free market (LMAO) does the old crash and burn.
Ducky -- Trying pointing that same finger at Jim-may Cah-ter for forcing the responsible free market banks to lend money to irresponsible thugs who everyone knew would never pay back the money. And then at Bubba Clinton for giving the advantage to Freddie and Fannie as they were backed by the government so that private banks HAD to adopt fiscally unsound practice in order to compete.
...and I thought we were all getting hosed!
Pappa, no banks were required to lend money to "irresponsible thugs".
The CRA made regulated 30 year fixed loans in neighborhoods that paid them back.
I can point to two neighborhoods in Boston, Jamaica Plain and Mission Hill that made good comebacks due to CRA.
That's another trait of the right. They will NEVER admit that they have to adjust their views of the infallibility of the market. It's much easier to look for a scapegoat.
Did CRA for Countrywide to make any loans? I'd like to know how since the only one with any regulatory power of Countrywide was the Fed.
Did CRA force AIG to levergage credit swaps at a 50 or 60 to 1 ratio? Come on, speak up.
Did CRA force Lehman to go under due to COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE LOANS?
Were CRA loans made with a front loaded commission that allowed large profits for making risky loans?
How many of the homes in Nevada, Florida, California and Arizona that are being foreclosed on were CRA loans?
Do your homework and get back to me. Oh, your "free market" (LMAO) has a poopy diaper.
"Shoo...that was close. Good work boys, we've saved the country from certain disaster! Why is my back so hot?"
or
"Save the tree! Save the tree!We'll worry about the jungle later!"
This is a good read check out how we are being had then go back to screaming about unions who try to generate a solid middle class.
Pappa, no banks were required to lend money to "irresponsible thugs". ...except the ones Barack Obama SUED like Bell Federal and Avondale Federal Savings and Loan.
Also Papa Frank you have it reversed on Frannie Mae.
Fannie was privately capitalized and had to deal with the stockholders. It was losing share and value due to competition from UNREGULATED companies like Countrywide (taps pleas), Ameriquest (gone) and the like.
As a result of that private competition it started accounting shenanigans and the like to keep up the stock price and executive bonuses.
Did the government help with these peccadilloes? Absolutely, but CRA was not a factor.
There was no reason to privatize Frannie but that's another story.
Were CRA loans made with a front loaded commission that allowed large profits for making risky loans?
In fact, the CRA modifications made under the Clinton Administration in 1995 opened the floodgate for PRECISELY THAT! For the first time in history, CRA loans were securitized, which allowed the process of "loan origination" to become a non-banking business.
Increasing home ownership was a goal of both Clinton and Bush administrations. There is evidence that the government influenced participants in the mortgage industry, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSE), to lower lending standards. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's mortgage policies fueled the trend towards issuing risky loans.
In 1995, the GSE began receiving government incentive payments for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. This resulted in the agencies purchasing subprime securities. Subprime mortgage loan originations surged by 25% per year between 1994 and 2003, resulting in a nearly ten-fold increase in the volume of these loans in just nine years. These securities were very attractive to Wall Street, and while Fannie and Freddie targeted the lowest-risk loans, they still fueled the subprime market as a result. In 1996 the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) agency directed the GSE to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. By 2008, the GSE owned or guaranteed nearly $5 trillion in mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, close to half the outstanding balance of U.S. mortgages. The GSE were highly leveraged, having borrowed large sums to purchase mortgages. When concerns arose regarding the ability of the GSE to make good on their guarantee obligations in September 2008, the U.S. government was forced to place the companies into a conservatorship, effectively nationalizing them at the taxpayers expense.
Liberal economist Robert Kuttner has criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 as possibly contributing to the subprime meltdown, although other economists disagree. A taxpayer-funded government bailout related to mortgages during the savings and loan crisis may have created a moral hazard and acted as encouragement to lenders to make similar higher risk loans.
Additionally, there is debate among economists regarding the effect of the Community Reinvestment Act, with detractors claiming it encourages lending to uncreditworthy consumers and defenders claiming a thirty year history of lending without increased risk. Detractors also claim that amendments to the CRA in the mid-1990s, raised the amount of home loans to otherwise unqualified low-income borrowers and also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages.
The fire department would continue to pour water on the fire despite the fact that there were no one to pay their salaries.
Farmer, there is no argument whatsoever that Clinton was just as big a negative player in this farce as say St. Ronnie Raygun and his deficits.
Clinton never met a laissez-faire arse that he didn't want to kiss.
I still stand amazed that people call him a liberal.
However, lumping his deregulatory follies in with CRA is inaccurate.
Let's imagine that the economy in Venezuela gets really bad in the next few years. Will everyone write about how Hugo Chavez had to cope with enormous economic turmoil?
That's unlikely. It would most likely be a torrent of verbage how Chavez's policies led to an economic disaster.
But, a different standard is applied to our economic chieftains who pursue policies that the blobosphere endorses.
The blobosphere assumes that the economic crisis is something that came out of the blue as opposed to being an entirely predictable result of the economic policies pursued by Paulson and his predecessors.
The point is extremely simple. There was a huge housing bubble that should have been visible to any competent economic analyst. The bubble was fueled by an enormous chain of highly leveraged finance. (As head of Goldman Sachs, Mr. Paulson personally made hundreds of millions of dollars from this bubble.)
It was entirely predictable that the housing bubble would burst and that its collapse would have a huge impact on the financial system and the economy as a whole. There is zero excuse for Paulson being caught by surprise by a "storm" that he helped create. Of course it's easier to blame loans to "poor people" (code for you know who).
Great captions, everybody! REALLY good.
unregeneratewag...we ARE 'all getting hosed'...thanks for coming by. Great line!
Elbro's right; my sense is that a fireman WOULD work without pay to save his country.
Pops and FJ...don't mind Ducky, he never saw the incredible Daniel Mudd video where the Black National Congress had pulled enough strings to where he was forced to say to their gathering (with obama there), virtually, "So, we'll give mortgages according to welfare payment sizes" Sounds brutal, but that was what any thinking person would think when hearing his fearful (you should have seen his eyes while he spoke) "I'll behave" speech. We were doomed from that moment on. He called them "the conscience of congress"..wow. Apparently, their consciences don't include what poor people will do NOW that they're out on the street because they never could afford their mortgages.
Too bad the congress didn't heed Bush and McCain who warned about lack of regulations. But, the media's kept that a best kept secret, too.
Morgan's right, too; Americans need to remember RENTING is not a sin nor is it an insult to one's ego, as much as not having gone to college but having trained otherwise is no sin or belittlement to anybody, either.
Ducky, stop being racist. You think only Blacks are foreclosing?
Yes, the National Black Caucus is LARGELY responsible for what's happened because of their bullying behind the scenes (see my other comment...I'm going to try to find that video)..
But PLENTY of White Americans are out on their bottoms, too.
And PLENTY of people don't realize Bush and mcCain did try to warn.
And, by the way, who the heck's a big fan of Paulsen's? Who cares?
Here's a difference in party mentality: When Republicans (And I'm not sure he is and I don't care) do wrong, we discuss it, we correct..when Libs do wrong, they go into overdrive covering and making sure the media plays it down (Wm Jefferson, Hillary, Bill, Holder, Raines, Johnson...)
The media makes mincemeat of Republicans...watch the other video I mentioned in my comment on the piece below this. Astonishing "the Republicans MUST have been in charge the last 2 years because things are SO BAD" (wrong)
However, lumping his deregulatory follies in with CRA is inaccurate.
Cowpucky!
In 1995, the GSE began receiving government incentive payments for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. This resulted in the agencies purchasing subprime securities. Subprime mortgage loan originations surged by 25% per year between 1994 and 2003, resulting in a nearly ten-fold increase in the volume of these loans in just nine years.
THE HOUSING BUBBLE started in 1995 BECAUSE OF THE CRA CHANGES, ducky...
THE BUBBLE WAS CAUSED BY THE CRA!
What part don't YOU still get, ducky?
When the government starts paying premiums to companies making NINJA loans, ducky, you create a housing bubble. It's as simple as that. Too much money chasing too few houses.
Yeah, it should have been easy to see the future and people DID see the future... In 1999 even the LA Times could see that something was up.
FJ; From Plato and Aristotle to COW PUCKY?
I taught my WEE AMERICANS class about Squanto today...thought you'd enjoy that!
Post a Comment