DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on September 25, 2008, 09:00:20 AM
-
So, now after 8 years of demaning that everyone else get in line and let him have whatever he wants (be it civil rights, authority to commit war on demand or secret wire-tapping, what have you), now Bush comes for his own followers. Finally, screwing over all Americans totally, he mentions his own base specifically and tells them "I know, I know, but I want your money, so trust and obey, bitches, I'm the prezinent!"
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_addresses_nation_about_bailout_0924.html
(http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_addresses_nation_about_bailout_0924.html)
In order to avoid such a doomsday scenario, Bush urges the passing of the proposed Wall Street bailout. "It is difficult to pass a bill that commits so much of the taxpayers' hard-earned money," he said. "I also understand the frustration of responsible Americans who pay their mortgages on time, file their tax returns every April 15th, and are reluctant to pay the cost of excesses on Wall Street. But, given the situation we are facing, not passing a bill now would cost these Americans much more later."
"Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised," Bush closed. "It has unleashed the talents and the productivity and entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. It has made this country the best place in the world to invest and do business. And it gives our economy the flexibility and resilience to absorb shocks, adjust, and bounce back.
He knows that he is handing a blank check over to Wall Street and hardcore conservatives who have said that the market is the greatest Decider and everything should be run like a business are totally bucking and frothing at the mouth about their core ideological principles just being ignored but he just doesn't give a shit. He wants the check and he threatens you with horrors upon horrors if you try and stop him.
But it's funny, 'cause he knows you couldn't stop him from doing it even if you tried. He's got pen in hand and he's writing and nobody's going to stop him short of a military coup. And, oh deary lordy me, we just don't do that in America.
As it stands now, I suspect we'll be a third world nation pretty soon but one that can't bear the idea of rising up with pitchforks and torches and setting things right.
-
Congress continues to hold the purse strings. Last I heard, Congress was still dominated by Democrats.
-
When I read posts like this, I find myself hoping that they don't pass the bailout bill.
Que sera, sera
-
<<When I read posts like this, I find myself hoping that they don't pass the bailout bill.>>
You guys are fucked either way, so what's the difference? It's just a matter of time. Fucked today if you don't pass it, and tomorrow if you do.
But the good news is I think the sheeple are finally starting to figure out who's responsible for the mess. Won't be a good year for the conservatives in America. Won't be a good quarter-century.
-
Won't be a good year for the conservatives in America.
I did not know Barney Franks was a conservative.
The house of cards started falling because banks were urged to advance mortgage credit to those less credit worthy than they should have been.
And the Freddies and Fannies were urged to buy this risky paper.
-
Yeah, you nailed it again, BT. The sheeple can blame it all on Barney Franks. They're gonna look right over the heads of Bush, Cheney et al. and zero in on Barney Franks. Oh, brother, this is going to be a bad quarter-century for Barney Franks. He better start packing his bags right now.
-
Yeah, you nailed it again, BT. The sheeple can blame it all on Barney Franks. They're gonna look right over the heads of Bush, Cheney et al. and zero in on Barney Franks. Oh, brother, this is going to be a bad quarter-century for Barney Franks. He better start packing his bags right now.
Do you dispute what i posted?
Did Franks urge the freddies and fannies to make it easier for less credit worthy persons to purchase homes?
Did he urge mortgage companies under threat of draconian regulation to do the same?
-
>>Did Franks urge the freddies and fannies to make it easier for less credit worthy persons to purchase homes?<<
He sure did. I brought this up in another thread (it appears almost simultaiusly).
REVIEW & OUTLOOK SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
Fannie Mae's Patron Saint
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks)
Taxpayers are now on the hook for as much as $200 billion to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and if you want to know why, look no further than the rapid response to this bailout from House baron Barney Frank. Asked about Treasury's modest bailout condition that the companies reduce the size of their high-risk mortgage-backed securities (MBS) portfolios starting in 2010, Mr. Frank was quoted on Monday as saying, "Good luck on that," and that it would never happen.
There you have the Fannie Mae problem in profile. Mr. Frank wants you to pick up the tab for its failures, while he still vows to block a reform that might prevent the same disaster from happening again.
At least the Massachusetts Democrat is consistent. His record is close to perfect as a stalwart opponent of reforming the two companies, going back more than a decade. The first concerted push to rein in Fan and Fred in Congress came as far back as 1992, and Mr. Frank was right there, standing athwart. But things really picked up this decade, and Barney was there at every turn. Let's roll the audiotape:
In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."
Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities.
Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations.
A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time.
Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy."
In April 2004, Fannie announced a multibillion-dollar financial "misstatement" of its own. Mr. Frank was back for the defense. Fannie and Freddie posed no risk to taxpayers, he said, adding that "I think Wall Street will get over it" if the two collapsed. Yes, they're certainly "over it" on the Street now that Uncle Sam is guaranteeing their Fannie paper, and even Fannie's subordinated debt.
By early 2007, Mr. Frank was in charge of the House Financial Services Committee, arguing that he had long favored some kind of reform. "What blocked it [reform] last year," Mr. Frank said then, "was the insistence of some economic conservative fundamentalists in the Bush Administration who, to be honest, don't think there should be a Fannie Mae or a Freddie Mac." What really blocked it was Mr. Frank's insistence that any reform be watered down and not include any reduction in their MBS holdings.
In January of last year, Mr. Frank also noted one reason he liked Fannie and Freddie so much: They were subject to his political direction. Contrasting Fan and Fred with private-sector mortgage financers, he noted, "I can ask Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to show forbearance" in a housing crisis. That is to say, because Fannie and Freddie are political creatures, Mr. Frank believed they would do his bidding.
And this is exactly what Mr. Frank attempted to prove when the housing market started to go south. He encouraged the companies to guarantee more "affordable" mortgages, thus abetting their disastrous plunge into subprime and Alt-A loans. He also pushed for, and got, an increase in the conforming-loan limits to allow Fan and Fred to securitize and guarantee larger mortgages. And he pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements -- which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall.
But the biggest payoff for Mr. Frank is the "affordable housing" trust fund he managed to push through as one political price for the recent Fannie reform bill. This fund siphons off a portion of Fannie and Freddie profits -- as much as $500 million a year each -- to a fund that politicians can then disburse to their favorite special interests.
This is also why Mr. Frank won't tolerate cutting the companies' MBS portfolios. He knows those portfolios (bought with debt borrowed at taxpayer-subsidized rates) were a main source of Fannie's profits before the housing crash, and he figures that once this crisis passes they can do it again. And this time, his fund will get part of the loot.
* * *
Mr. Frank has had many accomplices from both parties in his protection of Fan and Fred. But he was and is among the most vociferous and powerful. In any other area of American life, this track record would get a man run out of town. In Washington, he's hailed as a sage whose history of willful error will be forgotten faster than taxpayers can write a check for $200 billion.
-
Yeah, you nailed it again, BT. The sheeple can blame it all on Barney Franks. They're gonna look right over the heads of Bush, Cheney et al. and zero in on Barney Franks. Oh, brother, this is going to be a bad quarter-century for Barney Franks. He better start packing his bags right now.
Do you dispute what i posted?
Did Franks urge the freddies and fannies to make it easier for less credit worthy persons to purchase homes?
Did he urge mortgage companies under threat of draconian regulation to do the same?
The silence speaks volumes
-
Did Franks urge the freddies and fannies to make it easier for less credit worthy persons to purchase homes?
Did he urge mortgage companies under threat of draconian regulation to do the same?
The silence speaks volumes
======================================
No, it doesn't. If you know of examples, post them. If you have the answers, post them.
What draconian regulation? Can you name even one?
No one is buying your silly unanswered questions.
-
AGAIN......Not my questions, they're Bt's. And the lack of them being answered is far more damaging than your continued anemic efforts to criticize my highlighting of them not being answered
-
AGAIN......Not my questions, they're Bt's. And the lack of them being answered is far more damaging than your continued anemic efforts to criticize my highlighting of them not being answered
The very idea that anyone with any sense answering your bullshit questions which are designed not to illumine but to entrap is a sick joke.
-
Every day, its someone new to blame on the left. Clinton, Franks, etc, etc. Never the companies that placed bets on the mortgages not being paid. Never blame for the "president" who looked the other way for EIGHT SOLID YEARS and whistled past the graveyard and is now holding a gun to the nation's head for his 1 trillion dollar bailout.
Never a bit of blame for the REPUBLICAN congress that first in the '90's forced de-regulation through with Clinton. Never a bit of blame for the REPUBLICAN congress, president and SCOTUS that was in power and could do whatever in the hell popped into their cabezas but didn't look the first time at regulation of any of the players in this alleged mess.
Always, it was someone else. Always its political and strategies of blame and benefit and crybaby this and whiny ass that and trying to act like you know what the hell you are talking about.
-
And who the hell isn't blaming the Fed, Brass?? You seem to want to paint this all Bush/BOP, when in truth, EVERYONE IS TO BLAME, INCLUDING the clinton's, the Franks, and the Dem controlled congresses, that facilitated what the Lending institutions have been doing all this time. It ALSO includes the GOP controlled congress and the SEC chariman appointed by Bush, and under Bush's watch, that this was allowed to get to the levels that it currently has.
So, NO, it's not "always someone else", it's simply not ALL GOP and the Evil Bush ::)
-
And who the hell isn't blaming the Fed, Brass?? You seem to want to paint this all Bush/BOP, when in truth, EVERYONE IS TO BLAME, INCLUDING the clinton's, the Franks, and the Dem controlled congresses, that facilitated what the Lending institutions have been doing all this time. It ALSO includes the GOP controlled congress and the SEC chariman appointed by Bush, and under Bush's watch, that this was allowed to get to the levels that it currently has.
So, NO, it's not "always someone else", it's simply not ALL GOP and the Evil Bush ::)
If you will agree that it is, indeed, EVERYONE'S FAULT, then we would have consensus between at least you and I.
-
>>Never blame for the "president" who looked the other way for EIGHT SOLID YEARS ... <<
I'll be happy to throw whomever is responsible under the bus however, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about Brass. Bush, along with Congressional (and some dems I imagine) tried to put the brakes on this in 2003 only to be told to take a hike by Frank and Pelosi.
-
So, NO, it's not "always someone else", it's simply not ALL GOP and the Evil Bush ::)
If you will agree that it is, indeed, EVERYONE'S FAULT, then we would have consensus between at least you and I.
Yes, we have a consensus
-
Finally!
Now, what to do about?
I fully admit, I haven't a clue how the financial markets work or exactly how it all worked together to create the perfect storm. And I'll be honest, I'm not exactly convinced that there actually is a problem.
I'm leaning more and more towards not giving the corporations a dime. It seems to me that we got here without regulation and with people just making up reality all around.
Either everyone gets a check or nobody gets a check.
-
I vote "nobody", if those are the only 2 options, I'm given
-
So, NO, it's not "always someone else", it's simply not ALL GOP and the Evil Bush ::)
If you will agree that it is, indeed, EVERYONE'S FAULT, then we would have consensus between at least you and I.
Yes, we have a consensus
There does seem to be plenty of blame to go around, and few satisfactory explanations at this point.
I have a lot of mortgage myself , I am current on payments , so what has my participation meant to this situation?
-
I vote "nobody", if those are the only 2 options, I'm given
I'm open to any and all suggestions you might want to put forth.
-
There does seem to be plenty of blame to go around, and few satisfactory explanations at this point.
I have a lot of mortgage myself , I am current on payments , so what has my participation meant to this situation?
I haven't a clue. What do you think it should have meant?
-
There does seem to be plenty of blame to go around, and few satisfactory explanations at this point.
I have a lot of mortgage myself , I am current on payments , so what has my participation meant to this situation?
I haven't a clue. What do you think it should have meant?
As far as I know I am not hurt , though one of my Mortguages just changed hands.
Also as far as I know , I haven't caused hurt .
Yay me.
-
I vote "nobody", if those are the only 2 options, I'm given
I'm open to any and all suggestions you might want to put forth.
You're not going to like my suggestions, as they put a premium on minimizing the amount of Federal meddling & manipulating, and instead focuses on the more appropriate role they play, that of oversight.
We could move on from that point with ideas and brainstorming, unless you're ready to barrage my post with a volley of how selfish & uncaring I'm supposed to be
-
As far as I know I am not hurt , though one of my Mortguages just changed hands.
Also as far as I know , I haven't caused hurt .
Yay me.
So, as far as we can tell, you are not to blame in any way.
-
You're not going to like my suggestions, as they put a premium on minimizing the amount of Federal meddling & manipulating, and instead focuses on the more appropriate role they play, that of oversight.
We could move on from that point with ideas and brainstorming, unless you're ready to barrage my post with a volley of how selfish & uncaring I'm supposed to be
Seriously, I'm very interested and not trying to pick a fight. Believe me, I'm against the bailout too but I think it's because I don't want the rich to get richer at the poor's expense rather than an ideological stance on federal government.
-
Ok, let's see what kind of "compromise" can be achieved.....in fact....let's start a new thread....