For Dogman

On Oct 28, 5:29Â*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Oct 27, 4:17Â*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:46 am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
I'll leave it for others to judge who's full of crap.

http://nomiprins.squarespace.com/storage/bailouttallyoct2011.pdf

Yeah, that's a real credible source. Â*Like they don't have a clear
agenda. Â*What they have done is come up with a list of everything
they could possibly include as a "bailout". Â*

Duh? What do you want to leave off the ledger?

Like lending by the FED
to banks which has been going on since the creation of the FED.

Not at this rate

Wasn't the whole point of saving the economy to increase
liquidity so banks could continue making loans? Â*

And what have they done with "BAIL-OUT TAX DOLLARS"

Once again, you are confused. Â*That long list you presented
includes mostly lending by the FED. Â* That lending is not from tax
dollars.

What they've done with it is to lend it out where they can.
You assume that businesses are all lining up to take out
loans. Â*They are NOT. Â*Business, like everyone else, is
hunkered down, worried about what comes next. They aren't
eager to take on new debt. Â*And having a president that is
anti-business is a major factor. Â*Interest rates are low
for things like an equity line of credit too. Â*Have you
taken one out and spent the money?

Â*They've refused to
loan it, and that government loans at 0% interest and buy T bills and
bonds that pay about 3%. That didn't make it to your tally eitherr.

FED loans are not tax payer dollars. Â*NEver have been, never will
be.

So, the FED
lowers interest rates and extends CREDIT, not gifts, to banks.
The banks take those loans, which will be paid back. Â*The
loans made by the govt directly to those banks via TARP
have been paid back with 10% interest.
Exactly what the FED has been doing for a hundred years
and exactly what their role is in the financial system.
Your loons tally that as a bailout.

What exactly was YOUR solution?
For the FED to not extend those loans?

So much for your free market.

So much for your solution.

Where would we
be then, Monday morning quarterback? Â*I know, you'd be
here bitching about how the govt and the FED allowed a
financial catastrophy of unprecedented proportions to
occur and how it;s still all Wall Street's fault.

Â*All the subprime mortgages came to $1.4 trillion before they were
collateralized into $14 trillion of ABSs, CDOs, and CDSs by Wall Street.
If security banks want to bet, they should have been able to cover bets.
That's capitalism.

Yeah, they should have. Â*They also should have had the same
crystal ball you do, so they would have seen that housing prices
were going to suddenly decline by 40%. Â*But, unfortunately they
didn't. Â*Just like the person who sold the house. Â*And the person
who bought the house and knew the situation first hand, The real
estate
agents involved, the appraisers, the loan processors, govt which
encouraged those loans, etc. Â*There is plenty of blame to go
around. Â*But somehow, it apparently begins and ends with the
banks for you.

Not just me.

Question: What about this issue of the government¹s bailout being aimed
primarily at the financial institutions rather than the homeowners
who‹and the defaults that are at the root of the crisis?

Answer: "Yes. Well, it suggests that the bailout is either incompetence
or fraud, because the problem, according to the government, is the
defaulting mortgages, so the money should be directed at refinancing the
mortgages and paying off the foreclosed ones. And that would restore the
value of the mortgage-backed securities that are threatening the
financial institutions. If the value was restored, the crisis would be
over. So there¹s no connection between the government¹s explanation of
the crisis and its solution to the crisis."

Â*- Paul Craig Roberts,

That's still a long way from any alternate plan, but at least
it's a starting point. Unfortunately only a few minutes of
thought shows that while it's a populist position, it's not a
solution in reality. Let's start with the core of the problem.
We had a real estate bubble where all kinds of people
bought homes. They included responsible people who
could afford them, to irresponsible people with little in the
way of assets and the barest of income streams, to
speculators who were flipping homes. Collectively they
drove housing prices way up to levels that were
unsustainable. This is the same thing that happened
with the stock market in 2000. Everyone was on the
sure path to profits.

Then we had the sub-prime portion of that which
was the first to unravel and created the crisis in
2008. Those mortgages were made to people
less credit worthy, little or no assets, barely enough
income to support the loan, etc. So, let's say a
guy in Miami bought a home for $200,000 and took
out a $190,000 mortgage to do so. The real estate
market had peaked in 2006 and by 2008, the house
is now worth only $160,000. Several possibilities
come into play:

A - The guy realizes he's in the hole big time, that
it will be a very long time until he breaks even and
just walks away from it, defaulting, declares
bankruptcy, etc.

B - The guy loses his job, or undergoes some
similar misfortune and can no longer meet
the payments, which in turn forces him into
situation A. However, it's likely most of these
would turn into A anyway. Why would anyone
with little to lose choose to keep paying on
a house that is way underwater when there are
easy ways out?

How exactly does a govt plan addressed to the
home owner fix either of those? The only real
solution to either of them requires that the govt
somehow instantly raise the market value of
all real estate in America by a huge amount,
say 20%.

How would you do that and what would it cost?
Surely it would be orders of magnitude larger
than TARP.
And even if you do that, you still need to get guy
B a job and give him enough money in the interim
to keep paying the mortgage. In short, while it's
a populist idea, upon even simple analysis, it's
impossible. Which is why even Obama and
the Dems didn't do it.

The bailouts as done were far from perfect.
But at least, for the most part, the pain was shared.
The guy in Miami lost his $10,000 down payment.
The investors that bought that mortgage took a
substantial loss too. The institutions that held
derivatives of the mortgage securities took big
losses too. There was no easy, perfect way out
of this, no matter what some Monday morning
quaterback suggests.

And I'll ask again. You complain about what the
FED did. What would you have done if not to
drastically lower interest rates and flood the
economy with liquidity? They did that and that
directly helped millions of ordinary Americans.
Plenty of people who had 6 or 7% mortgages
refinanced them at 4.5% which put money into
their pockets today and will save them huge
amounts over the life of the loan.












former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department in the Reagan
administration and a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
He has taught at Georgetown University and Stanford University and is
the author of many books, including Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider¹s
Account of Policymaking in Washington.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/17/ex_asst_treasury_sec_paul_craig
And that was 2008



Still waiting to hear your solution to what should have been
done. Â*No TARP, no aggressive easing of interest rates by
the FED, no loans by the FED....

And then there is the Congressional Budget Office . Explaining how
America has changed for the worse under neo-liberal capitalism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...s-why-occupy-w
all-street-struck-a-nerve/2011/10/27/gIQA3bsMNM_story.html

It's easy to see that you aren't serious, because you feign ignorance of
common information. You obviously have lots of time to play games.


I feign ignorance? You're the one who makes posts suggesting
spending on defense is many times what it is on social programs.
That's either ignorance or lying.

In article
,
" wrote:

And I'll ask again. You complain about what the
FED did. What would you have done if not to
drastically lower interest rates and flood the
economy with liquidity? They did that and that
directly helped millions of ordinary Americans.
Plenty of people who had 6 or 7% mortgages
refinanced them at 4.5% which put money into
their pockets today and will save them huge
amounts over the life of the loan.

Simple. The government supports subprime loans, and banks that leveraged 10 to 30 times their assets go belly up, and the leaders of those companies go to in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for fraud.












former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department in the Reagan
administration and a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
He has taught at Georgetown University and Stanford University and is
the author of many books, including Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider¹s
Account of Policymaking in Washington.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/17/ex_asst_treasury_sec_paul_craig
And that was 2008



Still waiting to hear your solution to what should have been
done. Â*No TARP, no aggressive easing of interest rates by
the FED, no loans by the FED....

And then there is the Congressional Budget Office . Explaining how
America has changed for the worse under neo-liberal capitalism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...s-why-occupy-w
all-street-struck-a-nerve/2011/10/27/gIQA3bsMNM_story.html

It's easy to see that you aren't serious, because you feign ignorance of
common information. You obviously have lots of time to play games.


I feign ignorance? You're the one who makes posts suggesting
spending on defense is many times what it is on social programs.
That's either ignorance or lying.

We are 5% of the worlds population, yet we spend nearly half of the world's military budget. If that money is meant to give us security, a better way to spend it is on education, health care, and support of society, like postal service, libraries, swimming pools, social welfare, and community theater.
At the least it could be spent on food inspectors (especially CAFOs), the FDA, and FEMA.



Are you going to continue being a troll in alt.support.diet.lowcarb?
--
- Billy

E pluribus unum

In article
,
" wrote:

On Oct 16, 12:41*pm, Elmo wrote:
Show us where the entire Congress said the USA is responsible
for the financial problems in Ireland, Greece or the rest of Europe.
* You really don't know much about govt, do you. *You might find
a loon or two out of 500 that said that, but we haven't even seen
that from you, let alone the entire Congress.

Your president is lying?

Show us where Obama said the USA is responsible for
the world's financial problems in places like Ireland and
Greece.

Ever heard of newspapers, news reports, magazines, media? Ever read the
transcripts from congress, upper and lower?

Apparently you've never read newspapers or transcripts from
Congress, because if you did, you'd know there is no upper
and lower.



Ever read any media that
isn't US centric? British, German, French? Apparently not. Maybe you had
better tell him to stop apologising as if you are right, he has nothing
to apologise for. It might give him more time for other things, like
maybe running the country properly instead of running it into the ground.

So, Obama is so incompetent that he's running the US into
the ground but he's your source for what's wrong with America.
Go figure.






Your top economists who support the opinion of your government in their
books, papers and articles are all lying?

You could probably find some economists, who being
America haters and socialists, would have that opinion.

That your permanent response? Anyone academic or economist who has a
valid and well researched opinion who doesn't think that the sun shines
out of the US' ass is simply an America Hater? Ever heard of a certain
habit associated with Ostriches?

But I'd still like you to find one that says the problems
in Greece, Ireland, etc are the fault of the USA.

In other words, you have no such economist.



Even the banks abroad that were directly impacted
by the mortgage crisis here have no excuse. *Everyone
knew the US housing market had gone way up for
years, escalating even more sharply after 2000.
And any banker with any brain and/or experience
knows that these bubbles end badly.

Except the American bankers. Right - got you.

No fool. I never said the American bankers did not make
those same mistakes. Only that to lay the blame on them
for what is happening in places like Greece and Ireland is
totally bogus. Those countries got where they are by years
of excessive spending on socialist welfare states.
And any banks around the world that had too much exposure
to sectors of the US and were harmed by it did so on their
own and are just as negligent as any financial institution in
the USA. Got it now?
You mean they went into debt because of crony capitalism, and the
purchase of American ABS, which were highly leveraged, and because of
credit default swaps, would still make handsome profits for companies
like Goldman, Sacks, & Pillage.

Stop being a troll.






So, if they
held debt obligations linked to those markets, how
is it the fault of the USA and not their own greed
and stupidity?

They trusted the US when it kept saying that it could control things
fiscally.



LOL. Who exactly said that? No one needed to say it
because no one saw the real estate meltdown coming.
That's how it goes with most financial meltdowns and
recessions. To believe your case, you'd have to believe
banks in Europe had exposure to real estate in the USA
without knowing how fast it had gone up, how far, and
that loans were being made with little or nothing down.
Yes, I'll have another helping of a billion dollars of
those CMO's please, no need to check them out....

Are Canadian bankers that stupid that they can't
figure out how secure any of their investments are?
And when some of them blow up, instead of being
adults and taking responsibility, do they whine about
it being the US that "mislead" them?




I think that you have a problem with reality.

Really? * You're the one that claimed China owns
all the US debt, when in fact it's 8%.

I said that China holds the majority of US foreign debt,

Just how stupid are you? 8% is NOT a majority.




that it holds
more than any other nation. It does, that is indisputable. The US is in
hock to China.

As far as foreign countries, yes, China does hold the most.
It's narrowly more than that which Japan owns. It's 8% of
the total debt. So what? What countries own Canada's debt?
Foreign countries are lining up to buy US debt because
they know that in these uncertain times, it's still one of the
safest investments in the world. Those buying US govt
securities clearly do not have a problem, it's only you
with no skin in the game, who do.




You're the
one that claimed the USA govt is so deep in debt
it can't make payments...

If you are making payments, why is your debt increasing?

Because while making those payments, we are continuing
to borrow more. And lenders, unlike you, obviously have
high confidence in our ability to repay it, otherwise they
would not be doing so at 3% interest rates, now, would
they? Yes, if it continues unabated, it will eventually
reach a crisis. But that is a big IF and we're clearly nowhere
near that yet.



The only thing
that you have done is play games with interest rates and devalue your
currency to make the effective debt less. You aren't repaying it, and
you are still trying to borrow. America is broke - ask the White House.

Then why is Canada also not broke? Your govt debt to GDP is
about the same. And why is Japan, with a debt ratio 2.5X that
of the USA, not way ahead of everyone else? Why aren't you
sounding the alarm about those countries?

Once the proper steps are taken after the next election,
the US economy will recover. A recovery from recession
has always occured and only a fool
would bet against it. Economic growth makes a huge
impact on closing the deficit and together with spending
cuts and restraint the budget deficit will shrink. That is what those
buying
US bonds know. As for you, since you're not even in the game,
and think 8% is a majority, why would anyone listen to you?

It would also be a good thing if you could learn to trim posts.
--
- Billy

E pluribus unum

On Nov 3, 1:24*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
And I'll ask again. *You complain about what the
FED did. *What would you have done if not to
drastically lower interest rates and flood the
economy with liquidity? * They did that and that
directly helped millions of ordinary Americans.
Plenty of people who had 6 or 7% mortgages
refinanced them at 4.5% which put money into
their pockets today and will save them huge
amounts over the life of the loan.

Simple. The government *supports subprime loans, and banks that leveraged 10 to 30 *times their assets go belly up, and the leaders of those companies go to in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for fraud.




Sigh. I outlined the basics of the problem. Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. It's just vague jibberish. There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

As for letting the banks go belly up, aside from the chilling effect
that would
have on the economy, you have heard of FDIC no? So, while you may
feel
better seeing the banks fail, a good portion of that failure is then
going to wind
up paid for by the govt.

As for fraud, if the govt has a case where they can prove fraud, they
are
free to bring it at any time. I think Eric Holder is in your
political realm, not
mine. And making arrests would help get his boss re-elected. The
Bush
administration had no problem bringing lots of cases after the stock
market collapse in 2000.... Enron, Tyco, Wcom, etc execs were
successfully prosecuted.
Yet, few arrests have been made. You think just maybe it's because
they know they have no case? That what you claim is such heinous
fraud
is actually more a case of Wall Street incompetence and being caught
up in the same irrational exuberance as the buyer and seller of that
house
in Miami?









former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department in the Reagan
administration and a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
He has taught at Georgetown University and Stanford University and is
the author of many books, including Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider¹s
Account of Policymaking in Washington.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/17/ex_asst_treasury_sec_paul_craig
And that was 2008

Still waiting to hear your solution to what should have been
done. *No TARP, no aggressive easing of interest rates by
the FED, no loans by the FED....

And then there is the Congressional Budget Office . Explaining how
America has changed for the worse under neo-liberal capitalism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...s-why-occupy-w
all-street-struck-a-nerve/2011/10/27/gIQA3bsMNM_story.html

It's easy to see that you aren't serious, because you feign ignorance of
common information. You obviously have lots of time to play games.

I feign ignorance? *You're the one who makes posts suggesting
spending on defense is many times what it is on social programs.
That's either ignorance or lying.

We are 5% of the worlds population, yet we spend nearly half of the world's military budget. If that money is meant to give us security, a better way to spend it is on education, health care, and support of society, like postal service, libraries, swimming pools, social welfare, and community theater.
At the least it could be spent on food inspectors (especially CAFOs), the FDA, and FEMA.

Are you going to continue being a troll in alt.support.diet.lowcarb?
--
- Billy

E pluribus unum- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article
,
" wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:24*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
And I'll ask again. *You complain about what the
FED did. *What would you have done if not to
drastically lower interest rates and flood the
economy with liquidity? * They did that and that
directly helped millions of ordinary Americans.
Plenty of people who had 6 or 7% mortgages
refinanced them at 4.5% which put money into
their pockets today and will save them huge
amounts over the life of the loan.

Simple. The government *supports subprime loans, and banks that leveraged
10 to 30 *times their assets go belly up, and the leaders of those
companies go to in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for fraud.




Sigh. I outlined the basics of the problem. Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. It's just vague jibberish. There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

As for letting the banks go belly up, aside from the chilling effect
that would
have on the economy, you have heard of FDIC no? So, while you may
feel
better seeing the banks fail, a good portion of that failure is then
going to wind
up paid for by the govt.

As for fraud, if the govt has a case where they can prove fraud, they
are
free to bring it at any time. I think Eric Holder is in your
political realm, not
mine. And making arrests would help get his boss re-elected. The
Bush
administration had no problem bringing lots of cases after the stock
market collapse in 2000.... Enron, Tyco, Wcom, etc execs were
successfully prosecuted.
Yet, few arrests have been made. You think just maybe it's because
they know they have no case? That what you claim is such heinous
fraud
is actually more a case of Wall Street incompetence and being caught
up in the same irrational exuberance as the buyer and seller of that
house
in Miami?
Bull pucky.
They leveraged the leverage, and it wasn't the first time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...an-bubble-mach
ine-20100405
The Great American Bubble Machine
By*MATT TAIBBI
APRIL 5, 2010

From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every
major market manipulation since the Great Depression -- and they're
about to do it again.

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's
everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire
squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its
blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history
of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid
decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads
like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.

Invasion of the Home Snatchers

By now, most of us know the major players. As George Bush's last
Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect
of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of
Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street. Robert
Rubin, Bill Clinton's former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at
Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup ‹ which in turn got a $300
billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson. There's John Thain, the asshole
chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $87,000 area rug for his office as
his company was imploding; a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a
multi-billion-dollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer
funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain's sorry company. And Robert
Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his
fellow executives $225 million in golden-parachute payments as his bank
was self-destructing. There's Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff
during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of
staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the
former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailed-out
insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after
Liddy came on board. The heads of the Canadian and Italian national
banks are Goldman alums, as is the head of the World Bank, the head of
the New York Stock Exchange, the last two heads of the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York ‹ which, incidentally, is now in charge of overseeing
Goldman and so on and on.

.. . . The bank's unprecedented reach and power have enabled it to turn
all of America into a giant pump-and-dump scam, manipulating whole
economic sectors for years at a time, moving the dice game as this or
that market collapses, and all the time gorging itself on the unseen
costs that are breaking families everywhere ‹ high gas prices, rising
consumer credit rates, half-eaten pension funds, mass layoffs, future
taxes to pay off bailouts. All that money that you're losing, it's going
somewhere, and in both a literal and a figurative sense, Goldman Sachs
is where it's going: The bank is a huge, highly sophisticated engine for
converting the useful, deployed wealth of society into the least useful,
most wasteful and insoluble substance on Earth ‹ pure profit for rich
individuals.

The Feds vs. Goldman

They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The
formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of
a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they
hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the
aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules
in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political
patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary
citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again,
riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest,
selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys
keeping the wheels greased. They've been pulling this same stunt over
and over since the 1920s ‹ and now they're preparing to do it again,
creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet.
If you want to understand how we got into this financial crisis, you
have to first understand where all the money went ‹ and in order to
understand that, you need to understand what Goldman has already gotten
away with. It is a history exactly five bubbles long ‹ including last
year's strange and seemingly inexplicable spike in the price of oil.
There were a lot of losers in each of those bubbles, and in the bailout
that followed. But Goldman wasn't one of them.
(cont.)








former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department in the Reagan
administration and a former associate editor of the Wall Street
Journal.
He has taught at Georgetown University and Stanford University and is
the author of many books, including Supply-Side Revolution: An
Insider¹s
Account of Policymaking in Washington.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/17/ex_asst_treasury_sec_paul_craig
And that was 2008

Still waiting to hear your solution to what should have been
done. *No TARP, no aggressive easing of interest rates by
the FED, no loans by the FED....

And then there is the Congressional Budget Office . Explaining how
America has changed for the worse under neo-liberal capitalism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...ws-why-occupy-
w
all-street-struck-a-nerve/2011/10/27/gIQA3bsMNM_story.html

It's easy to see that you aren't serious, because you feign ignorance
of
common information. You obviously have lots of time to play games.

I feign ignorance? *You're the one who makes posts suggesting
spending on defense is many times what it is on social programs.
That's either ignorance or lying.

We are 5% of the worlds population, yet we spend nearly half of the world's
military budget. If that money is meant to give us security, a better way
to spend it is on education, health care, and support of society, like
postal service, libraries, swimming pools, social welfare, and community
theater.
At the least it could be spent on food inspectors (especially CAFOs), the
FDA, and FEMA.

Are you going to continue being a troll in alt.support.diet.lowcarb?
--
- Billy

E pluribus unum- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
--

Billy

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953

On Nov 4, 8:49*pm, Bill Rose wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:24*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
And I'll ask again. *You complain about what the
FED did. *What would you have done if not to
drastically lower interest rates and flood the
economy with liquidity? * They did that and that
directly helped millions of ordinary Americans.
Plenty of people who had 6 or 7% mortgages
refinanced them at 4.5% which put money into
their pockets today and will save them huge
amounts over the life of the loan.

Simple. The government *supports subprime loans, and banks that leveraged
10 to 30 *times their assets go belly up, and the leaders of those
companies go to in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for fraud.

Sigh. *I outlined the basics of the problem. *Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. *It's just vague jibberish. *There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. *The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. *How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

As for letting the banks go belly up, aside from the chilling effect
that would
have on the economy, you have heard of FDIC no? *So, while you may
feel
better seeing the banks fail, a good portion of that failure is then
going to wind
up paid for by the govt.

As for fraud, if the govt has a case where they can prove fraud, they
are
free to bring it at any time. *I think Eric Holder is in your
political realm, not
mine. *And making arrests would help get his boss re-elected. *The
Bush
administration had no problem bringing lots of cases after the stock
market collapse in 2000.... Enron, Tyco, Wcom, etc execs were
successfully prosecuted.
Yet, few arrests have been made. *You think just maybe it's because
they know they have no case? *That what you claim is such heinous
fraud
is actually more a case of Wall Street incompetence and being caught
up in the same irrational exuberance as the buyer and seller of that
house
*in Miami?

Bull pucky.
They leveraged the leverage, and it wasn't the first time.


See, here's the thing. You have to understand cause and effect.
Wall Street could leverage derivatives on mortgages all they want
and it would NOT cause a collapse in home prices. The only way
for that to happen was for the HOUSES to have been overvalued
and bought with mortgages that the buyers ultimately either could
not continue to pay, or in many cases simply chose not to pay
and walked away from. That is how you get a decline in the
home prices and the mortgages themselves taking a hit.

Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that foolish and greedy
homebuyers were every bit as much a part of the problem as
those on Wall Street that packaged the loans and sold them
to investors. There are plenty of people responsible all
along the way. But clearly it includes the people who bought
homes with little or no money down and no savings, etc to
rely on if necessary. And the govt encouraged those loans.
In fact, they forced banks to make them. So, spare us the
nonsense of it just being evil Wall Street that created this
whole mess. Goldman Sachs was not in Miami when that
house was bought. Nor did they higher the appraiser that
valued the house. Many of the people caught up in this
bubble were homebuyers who were every bit as greedy
as anyone on Wall Street. And when the deal went against
them and the house was worth a lot less than the mortgage,
they simply walked away.

Speaking of Miami, I'm still waiting for an answer:

Sigh. I outlined the basics of the problem. Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. It's just vague jibberish. There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. How exactly does the govt
"support" that?


You claim to have the answers. How does the govt "support"
the above situation?

In article
,
" wrote:

On Nov 4, 8:49*pm, Bill Rose wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:24*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
And I'll ask again. *You complain about what the
FED did. *What would you have done if not to
drastically lower interest rates and flood the
economy with liquidity? * They did that and that
directly helped millions of ordinary Americans.
Plenty of people who had 6 or 7% mortgages
refinanced them at 4.5% which put money into
their pockets today and will save them huge
amounts over the life of the loan.

Simple. The government *supports subprime loans, and banks that
leveraged
10 to 30 *times their assets go belly up, and the leaders of those
companies go to in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for fraud.

Sigh. *I outlined the basics of the problem. *Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. *It's just vague jibberish. *There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. *The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. *How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

As for letting the banks go belly up, aside from the chilling effect
that would
have on the economy, you have heard of FDIC no? *So, while you may
feel
better seeing the banks fail, a good portion of that failure is then
going to wind
up paid for by the govt.

As for fraud, if the govt has a case where they can prove fraud, they
are
free to bring it at any time. *I think Eric Holder is in your
political realm, not
mine. *And making arrests would help get his boss re-elected. *The
Bush
administration had no problem bringing lots of cases after the stock
market collapse in 2000.... Enron, Tyco, Wcom, etc execs were
successfully prosecuted.
Yet, few arrests have been made. *You think just maybe it's because
they know they have no case? *That what you claim is such heinous
fraud
is actually more a case of Wall Street incompetence and being caught
up in the same irrational exuberance as the buyer and seller of that
house
*in Miami?

Bull pucky.
They leveraged the leverage, and it wasn't the first time.


See, here's the thing. You have to understand cause and effect.
Wall Street could leverage derivatives on mortgages all they want
and it would NOT cause a collapse in home prices. The only way
for that to happen was for the HOUSES to have been overvalued
and bought with mortgages that the buyers ultimately either could
not continue to pay, or in many cases simply chose not to pay
and walked away from. That is how you get a decline in the
home prices and the mortgages themselves taking a hit.

Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that foolish and greedy
homebuyers were every bit as much a part of the problem as
those on Wall Street that packaged the loans and sold them
to investors. There are plenty of people responsible all
along the way. But clearly it includes the people who bought
homes with little or no money down and no savings, etc to
rely on if necessary. And the govt encouraged those loans.
In fact, they forced banks to make them. So, spare us the
nonsense of it just being evil Wall Street that created this
whole mess. Goldman Sachs was not in Miami when that
house was bought. Nor did they higher the appraiser that
valued the house. Many of the people caught up in this
bubble were homebuyers who were every bit as greedy
as anyone on Wall Street. And when the deal went against
them and the house was worth a lot less than the mortgage,
they simply walked away.

Speaking of Miami, I'm still waiting for an answer:

Sigh. I outlined the basics of the problem. Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. It's just vague jibberish. There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. How exactly does the govt
"support" that?
And if the house is only worth $160,000, offer it to the occupant for
$160,000. That is all the bank will get by kicking the occupant on to
the street. Are you really that obtuse?

You can't read very well, can you? And where is my response?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...an-bubble-mach
ine-20100405

Your response to the article, s'il te plait.



You claim to have the answers. How does the govt "support"
the above situation?

Your a real bottom feeder, aren't you?
--
- Billy

E pluribus unum

On Nov 6, 12:56*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:49*pm, Bill Rose wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:24*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
And I'll ask again. *You complain about what the
FED did. *What would you have done if not to
drastically lower interest rates and flood the
economy with liquidity? * They did that and that
directly helped millions of ordinary Americans.
Plenty of people who had 6 or 7% mortgages
refinanced them at 4.5% which put money into
their pockets today and will save them huge
amounts over the life of the loan.

Simple. The government *supports subprime loans, and banks that
leveraged
10 to 30 *times their assets go belly up, and the leaders of those
companies go to in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for fraud.

Sigh. *I outlined the basics of the problem. *Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. *It's just vague jibberish. *There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. *The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. *How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

As for letting the banks go belly up, aside from the chilling effect
that would
have on the economy, you have heard of FDIC no? *So, while you may
feel
better seeing the banks fail, a good portion of that failure is then
going to wind
up paid for by the govt.

As for fraud, if the govt has a case where they can prove fraud, they
are
free to bring it at any time. *I think Eric Holder is in your
political realm, not
mine. *And making arrests would help get his boss re-elected. *The
Bush
administration had no problem bringing lots of cases after the stock
market collapse in 2000.... Enron, Tyco, Wcom, etc execs were
successfully prosecuted.
Yet, few arrests have been made. *You think just maybe it's because
they know they have no case? *That what you claim is such heinous
fraud
is actually more a case of Wall Street incompetence and being caught
up in the same irrational exuberance as the buyer and seller of that
house
*in Miami?

Bull pucky.
They leveraged the leverage, and it wasn't the first time.

See, here's the thing. *You have to understand cause and effect.
Wall Street could leverage derivatives on mortgages all they want
and it would NOT cause a collapse in home prices. *The only way
for that to happen was for the HOUSES to have been overvalued
and bought with mortgages that the buyers ultimately either could
not continue to pay, or in many cases simply chose not to pay
and walked away from. *That is how you get a decline in the
home prices and the mortgages themselves taking a hit.

Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that foolish and greedy
homebuyers were every bit as much a part of the problem as
those on Wall Street that packaged the loans and sold them
to investors. * *There are plenty of people responsible all
along the way. *But clearly it includes the people who bought
homes with little or no money down and no savings, etc to
rely on if necessary. * And the govt encouraged those loans.
In fact, they forced banks to make them. *So, spare us the
nonsense of it just being evil Wall Street that created this
whole mess. *Goldman Sachs was not in Miami when that
house was bought. *Nor did they higher the appraiser that
valued the house. *Many of the people caught up in this
bubble were homebuyers who were every bit as greedy
as anyone on Wall Street. * And when the deal went against
them and the house was worth a lot less than the mortgage,
they simply walked away.

Speaking of Miami, I'm still waiting for an answer:

*Sigh. *I outlined the basics of the problem. *Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. *It's just vague jibberish. *There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. *The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. *How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

And if the house is only worth $160,000, offer it to the occupant for
$160,000. That is all the bank will get by kicking the occupant on to
the street. Are you really that obtuse?

Again, that is not an answer. You said the govt should support the
buyer. So, how exactly do they do that? The govt does not own
the house or the mortgage. So, step by step, what exactly does
the govt do? Who does the govt give money, if any, to?
This is where you have a problem. You like to
take digested garbage from some left wing kooks and paint
broad smears across select segments of capitalism. Yet, when
it comes time for the specifics of how you would have addressed
the problem, all we hear are crickets.





You can't read very well, can you? And where is my response?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...an-bubble-mach
ine-20100405

Your response to the article, s'il te plait.



Since when is Rolling Stone a credible source on the workings of
the financial world? This is an obvious smear piece that attempts
to blame Goldman Sachs for everything: the Great Depression,
the internet stock bubble, to the recent mortgage crisis.

An alternate view is that Goldman was just responding to the
conditions and business practices of the times. Just like
everyone from the home buyer, to the home seller, to the
real estate agents, to the loan issuers, to the loan bundlers,
to the exotic derivatives creators, to those that bought the
securities, etc. All of those people were caught up in a
bubble where they though housing prices could only go
up and they could not lose. Yet, yellow journalists like this
crap piece try to put the blame on one house on Wall Street?
What's next, that the Illuminati did it all?

The problem you have is that you prefer pre-digested dog
food like the above instead of thinking for yourself, going to
the sources of facts. A classic example is the crap you posted
about how spending on defense is 4X that on Health and Human
Services. A simple look at the actual US budget shows that
defense spending is actually half that of the HHS budget. You
bought that hook, line and sinker from some loon out to lie,
when the real data is so readily available.

In article
,
" wrote:

On Nov 4, 8:49*pm, Bill Rose wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:24*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
And I'll ask again. *You complain about what the
FED did. *What would you have done if not to
drastically lower interest rates and flood the
economy with liquidity? * They did that and that
directly helped millions of ordinary Americans.
Plenty of people who had 6 or 7% mortgages
refinanced them at 4.5% which put money into
their pockets today and will save them huge
amounts over the life of the loan.

Simple. The government *supports subprime loans, and banks that
leveraged
10 to 30 *times their assets go belly up, and the leaders of those
companies go to in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for fraud.

Sigh. *I outlined the basics of the problem. *Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. *It's just vague jibberish. *There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. *The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. *How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

As for letting the banks go belly up, aside from the chilling effect
that would
have on the economy, you have heard of FDIC no? *So, while you may
feel
better seeing the banks fail, a good portion of that failure is then
going to wind
up paid for by the govt.

As for fraud, if the govt has a case where they can prove fraud, they
are
free to bring it at any time. *I think Eric Holder is in your
political realm, not
mine. *And making arrests would help get his boss re-elected. *The
Bush
administration had no problem bringing lots of cases after the stock
market collapse in 2000.... Enron, Tyco, Wcom, etc execs were
successfully prosecuted.
Yet, few arrests have been made. *You think just maybe it's because
they know they have no case? *That what you claim is such heinous
fraud
is actually more a case of Wall Street incompetence and being caught
up in the same irrational exuberance as the buyer and seller of that
house
*in Miami?

Bull pucky.
They leveraged the leverage, and it wasn't the first time.


See, here's the thing. You have to understand cause and effect.
Wall Street could leverage derivatives on mortgages all they want
and it would NOT cause a collapse in home prices. The only way
for that to happen was for the HOUSES to have been overvalued
and bought with mortgages that the buyers ultimately either could
not continue to pay, or in many cases simply chose not to pay
and walked away from. That is how you get a decline in the
home prices and the mortgages themselves taking a hit.

Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that foolish and greedy
homebuyers were every bit as much a part of the problem as
those on Wall Street that packaged the loans and sold them
to investors. There are plenty of people responsible all
along the way. But clearly it includes the people who bought
homes with little or no money down and no savings, etc to
rely on if necessary. And the govt encouraged those loans.
In fact, they forced banks to make them. So, spare us the
nonsense of it just being evil Wall Street that created this
whole mess. Goldman Sachs was not in Miami when that
house was bought. Nor did they higher the appraiser that
valued the house. Many of the people caught up in this
bubble were homebuyers who were every bit as greedy
as anyone on Wall Street. And when the deal went against
them and the house was worth a lot less than the mortgage,
they simply walked away.

Speaking of Miami, I'm still waiting for an answer:

Sigh. I outlined the basics of the problem. Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. It's just vague jibberish. There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. How exactly does the govt
"support" that?


You claim to have the answers. How does the govt "support"
the above situation?

Dear Bozo, subprime defaults amounted to $1.4 trillion. How do you
explain the $14 trillion paid by the government? Hummm?
--
- Billy

E pluribus unum
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

In article
,
" wrote:

On Nov 6, 12:56*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:49*pm, Bill Rose wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:24*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
And I'll ask again. *You complain about what the
FED did. *What would you have done if not to
drastically lower interest rates and flood the
economy with liquidity? * They did that and that
directly helped millions of ordinary Americans.
Plenty of people who had 6 or 7% mortgages
refinanced them at 4.5% which put money into
their pockets today and will save them huge
amounts over the life of the loan.

Simple. The government *supports subprime loans, and banks that
leveraged
10 to 30 *times their assets go belly up, and the leaders of those
companies go to in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for fraud.

Sigh. *I outlined the basics of the problem. *Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. *It's just vague jibberish. *There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. *The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. *How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

As for letting the banks go belly up, aside from the chilling effect
that would
have on the economy, you have heard of FDIC no? *So, while you may
feel
better seeing the banks fail, a good portion of that failure is then
going to wind
up paid for by the govt.

As for fraud, if the govt has a case where they can prove fraud, they
are
free to bring it at any time. *I think Eric Holder is in your
political realm, not
mine. *And making arrests would help get his boss re-elected. *The
Bush
administration had no problem bringing lots of cases after the stock
market collapse in 2000.... Enron, Tyco, Wcom, etc execs were
successfully prosecuted.
Yet, few arrests have been made. *You think just maybe it's because
they know they have no case? *That what you claim is such heinous
fraud
is actually more a case of Wall Street incompetence and being caught
up in the same irrational exuberance as the buyer and seller of that
house
*in Miami?

Bull pucky.
They leveraged the leverage, and it wasn't the first time.

See, here's the thing. *You have to understand cause and effect.
Wall Street could leverage derivatives on mortgages all they want
and it would NOT cause a collapse in home prices. *The only way
for that to happen was for the HOUSES to have been overvalued
and bought with mortgages that the buyers ultimately either could
not continue to pay, or in many cases simply chose not to pay
and walked away from. *That is how you get a decline in the
home prices and the mortgages themselves taking a hit.

Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that foolish and greedy
homebuyers were every bit as much a part of the problem as
those on Wall Street that packaged the loans and sold them
to investors. * *There are plenty of people responsible all
along the way. *But clearly it includes the people who bought
homes with little or no money down and no savings, etc to
rely on if necessary. * And the govt encouraged those loans.
In fact, they forced banks to make them. *So, spare us the
nonsense of it just being evil Wall Street that created this
whole mess. *Goldman Sachs was not in Miami when that
house was bought. *Nor did they higher the appraiser that
valued the house. *Many of the people caught up in this
bubble were homebuyers who were every bit as greedy
as anyone on Wall Street. * And when the deal went against
them and the house was worth a lot less than the mortgage,
they simply walked away.

Speaking of Miami, I'm still waiting for an answer:

*Sigh. *I outlined the basics of the problem. *Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. *It's just vague jibberish. *There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. *The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. *How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

And if the house is only worth $160,000, offer it to the occupant for
$160,000. That is all the bank will get by kicking the occupant on to
the street. Are you really that obtuse?

Again, that is not an answer. You said the govt should support the
buyer. So, how exactly do they do that? The govt does not own
the house or the mortgage. So, step by step, what exactly does
the govt do? Who does the govt give money, if any, to?
This is where you have a problem. You like to
take digested garbage from some left wing kooks and paint
broad smears across select segments of capitalism.
You call Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
Department in the Reagan administration and a former associate editor of
the Wall Street Journal. He has taught at Georgetown University and
Stanford University and is the author of many books, including
Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider¹s Account of Policymaking in
Washington, a left wing kook?

Wat'chew smokin' boy?

"it suggests that the bailout is either incompetence or fraud, because
the problem, according to the government, is the defaulting mortgages,
so the money should be directed at refinancing the mortgages and paying
off the foreclosed ones. And that would restore the value of the
mortgage-backed securities that are threatening the financial
institutions. If the value was restored, the crisis would be over. So
there¹s no connection between the government¹s explanation of the crisis
and its solution to the crisis."
- Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/17/ex_asst_treasury_sec_paul_craig



Yet, when
it comes time for the specifics of how you would have addressed
the problem, all we hear are crickets.

You call Paul Craig Roberts a cricket?

You be out of your mind, Bozo.




You can't read very well, can you? And where is my response?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...an-bubble-mach
ine-20100405

Your response to the article, s'il te plait.



Since when is Rolling Stone a credible source on the workings of
the financial world?
Who do you want, Nomi Prins, Paul Craig Roberts, or Joseph Stiglitz?
It's all the same. Only the neanderthals want to blame those who got
subprime loans. As I said, subprime loans only accounted for $1.4
trillion, yet the government paid out $14 trillion to cover the
investment banks who had leveraged $1.4 trillion into $140 trillion of
collateralized debt obligations. Countries go belly up, and Wall St.
brokers get billions in bonuses. You are such a schmuck.

This is an obvious smear piece that attempts
to blame Goldman Sachs for everything: the Great Depression,
the internet stock bubble, to the recent mortgage crisis.

An alternate view is that Goldman was just responding to the
conditions and business practices of the times. Just like
everyone from the home buyer, to the home seller, to the
real estate agents, to the loan issuers, to the loan bundlers,
to the exotic derivatives creators, to those that bought the
securities, etc. All of those people were caught up in a
bubble where they though housing prices could only go
up and they could not lose. Yet, yellow journalists like this
crap piece try to put the blame on one house on Wall Street?
What's next, that the Illuminati did it all?

The problem you have is that you prefer pre-digested dog
food like the above instead of thinking for yourself, going to
the sources of facts. A classic example is the crap you posted
about how spending on defense is 4X that on Health and Human
Services. A simple look at the actual US budget shows that
defense spending is actually half that of the HHS budget. You
bought that hook, line and sinker from some loon out to lie,
when the real data is so readily available.
--
- Billy

E pluribus unum
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405