PDA

View Full Version : General Politics "Where's your bailout?"


banyon
09-19-2008, 06:29 PM
IMO, this needs to be the message of Obama's campaign right now.

If the Dem leadership just becomes complicit in this clusterf***, and acquieses in all of the shovelingof taxpayer money to domestic and foreign investors, then they are missing a huge opportunity.

Maybe they are afraid of the Republicans saying "You're using this as a political opportunity!" Seems like I've heard some murmuring about that.

Personally I like "Privatized Profits, "Socialized Losses". Because that's what we're getting.

Sully
09-19-2008, 06:31 PM
"Privatized Profits, "Socialized Losses"

That's good.
Damned good.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-19-2008, 06:33 PM
It's like an inversion of Stalin's quote.

When one man goes bankrupt, it's a statistic,
When a corporation goes bankrupt, it's a tragedy.

Mr. Kotter
09-19-2008, 06:41 PM
....

Personally I like "Privatized Profits, "Socialized Losses". Because that's what we're getting.

:spock:

You might win in Berkley, Boston, or Bangor with a motto like that.....but if the campaign were to really use that, they would have just handed the election to McCain.

:shake:

irishjayhawk
09-19-2008, 06:42 PM
:spock:

You might win in Berkley, Boston, or Bangor with a motto like that.....but if the campaign were to really use that, they would have just handed the election to McCain.

:shake:

I don't know. It's accurate, to be sure.

The problem lies in that the easy retort is that the Democratic policies lean socialistic as it is.

Mr. Kotter
09-19-2008, 06:49 PM
I don't know. It's accurate, to be sure.

The problem lies in that the easy retort is that the Democratic policies lean socialistic as it is.

And that is a good retort.

Republicans could turn the tables too with:

Socialized gain; privatived pain.

Would be just as effective.....meaning, not so much.

;)

irishjayhawk
09-19-2008, 06:51 PM
And that is a good retort.

Republicans could turn the tables too with:

Socialized gain; privatived pain.

Would be just as effective.....meaning, not so much.

;)

Yes, but I would hope - and it's a strong hope - the American electorate would see the truth rather than the spin.

Where truth is concerned, banyon's proposal is utterly brilliant.

banyon
09-19-2008, 06:53 PM
:spock:

You might win in Berkley, Boston, or Bangor with a motto like that.....but if the campaign were to really use that, they would have just handed the election to McCain.

:shake:

I think the middle class is the demo you want to aim at and this gross misuse of tax money needs to be hung around the necks of these charlatans as an albatross.


The wording is neither here nor there.

Mr. Kotter
09-19-2008, 06:53 PM
Yes, but I would hope - and it's a strong hope - the American electorate would see the truth rather than the spin.

Where truth is concerned, banyon's proposal is utterly brilliant.

Amusing, yes. Delusional, yes. Brilliant? Nope. Not even close.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-19-2008, 06:54 PM
Yes, but I would hope - and it's a strong hope - the American electorate would see the truth rather than the spin.

Where truth is concerned, banyon's proposal is utterly brilliant.

The American electorate almost makes KCJohnny seem intelligent.

banyon
09-19-2008, 06:55 PM
You can't pay your medical bills? You can't pay your home loans? Garnishments, foreclosure.

Wall Street can't pay, you bail them out.

Mr. Kotter
09-19-2008, 06:56 PM
I think the middle class is the demo you want to aim at and this gross misuse of tax money needs to be hung around the necks of these charlatans as an albatross.


The wording is neither here nor there.

Unfortunately, for Obama and the Dems....they share, plenty, in the blame for this. It may be, ironically, one of the best examples of "bipartisanship" over the past 10-12 years.....the movement toward making the 'American Dream' of home ownership, a reality....even for people who can't really afford it. I don't think that's a can of worms they really want to open.

Mr. Kotter
09-19-2008, 06:56 PM
You can't pay your medical bills? You can't pay your home loans? Garnishments, foreclosure.

Wall Street can't pay, you bail them out.

And a Democratically controlled Congress will be signing on to those bailouts, won't they? :shrug:

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 06:58 PM
IMO, this needs to be the message of Obama's campaign right now.

If the Dem leadership just becomes complicit in this clusterf***, and acquieses in all of the shovelingof taxpayer money to domestic and foreign investors, then they are missing a huge opportunity.

Maybe they are afraid of the Republicans saying "You're using this as a political opportunity!" Seems like I've heard some murmuring about that.

Personally I like "Privatized Profits, "Socialized Losses". Because that's what we're getting.


I think Dem leadership already is complicit. They all are.

Both parties are *****ing the taxpayers over again.

After 9-11, their "solution" was to create another beauracracy: Homeland Security.

the mortage/CMO crisis they "solve" by increasing government power and authority.

The government creates these problems, and then "solves" them by increasing their own power and self agrandizement.

We're being ripped off, and the country is going down a shitter.

This is like Goodfellas on steroids.

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:01 PM
I think Dem leadership already is complicit. They all are.

Both parties are *****ing the taxpayers over again.

After 9-11, their "solution" was to create another beauracracy: Homeland Security.

the mortage/CMO crisis they "solve" by increasing government power and authority.

The government creates these problems, and then "solves" them by increasing their own power and self agrandizement.

We're being ripped off, and the country is going down a shitter.

This is like Goodfellas on steroids.

You know what your candidate is proposing, right?

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2008/09/19/mccain-cp-5550168.jpg
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/09/19/mccain-finances.html
McCain, however, said he would establish a new federal agency to address future financial woes.

The Arizona senator described his proposed mortgage and financial institutions trust as an intervention system that would work to prevent bailouts and bankruptcies and as part of a move to put the U.S. Treasury in a "proactive" position.

The agency would work with the private sector to identify weak institutions and help them before they are in need of government assistance, he said.

In an oft-repeated criticism, he railed against lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats for contributing to a "culture of lobbying and influence-peddling" that caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

Baby Lee
09-19-2008, 07:02 PM
The problem for Obama is that the cause of these problems is the aspirations he enounces. The housing industry, and credit industry in general, has been the source of middle class and lower middle class comfort, feeling comfortable giving out loans to people who shouldn't have gotten them, or for wildly more than they should have recieved, on the previous 'truism' that even if they default they leave behind as collateral more than enough to cover our exposure.

Taking this issue on strongly will tread d@mn close to Carter's malaise speech, a comparison he certainly doesn't want.

Come November, he spins this wrong, and his message is gonna be. 'The past 8 years, the government hasn't cared about the pain of the middle class. Well I hear you, and in response I'll make sure you can't get a loan for a house unless you're flush and have perfect credit, oh, and those gas prices are gonna stay sky high for as long as it takes for you dummies to demand those innovations in energy that still haven't come about despite frantic efforts and the great profit they would realize.'

irishjayhawk
09-19-2008, 07:05 PM
Amusing, yes. Delusional, yes. Brilliant? Nope. Not even close.

How not?

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:05 PM
You know what your candidate is proposing, right?

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2008/09/19/mccain-cp-5550168.jpg
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/09/19/mccain-finances.html

I hold no illusions about McCain/Palin.

I'm not sure I'm even going to vote (why bother?).

Are you still pretending B.O. is something other than just another dirtbag politician?

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:05 PM
And a Democratically controlled Congress will be signing on to those bailouts, won't they? :shrug:

That's what my post is about, they shouldn't. Not without giving something serious to the people doing the bailin'.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-19-2008, 07:06 PM
I hold no illusions about McCain/Palin.

I'm not sure I'm even going to vote (why bother?).

Are you still pretending B.O. is something other than just another dirtbag politician?

I love it when people start waking up.

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:23 PM
I love it when people start waking up.

How anybody can read this:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/mortgage-giants.html

And walk away thinking that either candidate represents "change" is a silly ass.

Both candidates are corupt, but I think it's obvious to any critical thinking person that the Dem's are much deeper in the slime concerning the mortgage/CMO mess.

Yet, the O-bots on this forum continue the charade that their candidate is something other than just another run of the mill dirtbag politician.

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:33 PM
How anybody can read this:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/mortgage-giants.html

And walk away thinking that either candidate represents "change" is a silly ass.

Both candidates are corupt, but I think it's obvious to any critical thinking person that the Dem's are much deeper in the slime concerning the mortgage/CMO mess.
Yet, the O-bots on this forum continue the charade that their candidate is something other than just another run of the mill dirtbag politician.

How is that "obvious"?

patteeu
09-19-2008, 07:38 PM
"Privatized Profits, "Socialized Losses"

Isn't that what normal insurance does too? :shrug:

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:39 PM
Also:

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: While employees, shareholders and other victims are left with nothing but trouble and debt, the people who helped cause the collapse make off with tens of millions in severance packages. Disgraceful. I’ve spoken out against the excess of corporate executives, and I can assure you that if I’m president, we’re not going to tolerate that anymore

What is he planning to do about this exactly? Institute an income ceiling?

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:40 PM
How is that "obvious"?

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=192033


Democrats have spent more time investigating Sarah Palin than they have the crooks in their own party who are responsible for the financial crisis!

The current financial crisis was sparked by the failure of the huge government backed mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac whose fraudulent accounting practices and willingness to encourage banks to make bad loans to people who could not afford them have undermined faith in the financial sector of the U.S. economy.

Caught in this mess are millions of Americans who have either had their homes foreclosed or whose investments or employment with the affected banks, mortgage companies and investment houses has come crashing down.

All Americans are affected by the downturn in the economy caused by this crisis and leaving taxpayers left to clean up the mess estimated to cost $150 billion or more.

It’s a financial crisis that was avoidable and that’s where the scandal comes in. And the responsibility should be placed squarely on the Democrats who milked this financial cow for their own enrichment while ignoring the growing dangers.

Worse than ENRON

The fraudulent accounting that allowed Enron executives to enrich themselves and led the company to bankruptcy and the loss of $68 billion in employee and investor assets is dwarfed by that at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac whose loses to investors will top $103 billion. Fannie Mae’s accounting fraud was $11 billion, 19 times larger than Enron’s $567 million accounting restatement.

Enron ’s CEO Jeff Skilling went to jail and Chairman Ken Lay died, probably as a result of the stress from prosecution. Both Franklin Raines and James Johnson , CEO’s of Fannie Mae, who played key roles in previous Democrat administrations were fired, but later went to work for the Obama campaign. Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick also was a highly paid executive at Fannie Mae but left to join the 9/11 Commission (she was chiefly responsible for the wall that prevented law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information). Gorelick is considered as a possible Attorney General in an Obama Administration.

News organizations which ran daily stories linking the Bush Administration to Enron executives have been nearly silent on the direct, long term political connections between the Fannie Mae disaster and Democrats.

Buying Obama

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used $174 million, to pay for lobbyists to insulate them from the tightened regulation and oversight that might have avoided this crisis. And it won’t surprise many readers to learn that Obama received over $126,000 in campaign contributions since first running for the Senate in 2004. Obama ranked #2 on the list which includes mostly Democrats. By comparison, McCain received $21,550. Other top Democrats on Fannie Mae’s money list include Senator Chris Dodd, who received a favorable loan from a related mortgage company, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

David Frum summed it all up in three sentences:

Here is potentially the largest financial disaster in American history. The American taxpayer stands to lose billions; Democratic insiders have extracted tens of millions. If Enron was a party scandal … what is this?

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:44 PM
So you cherry picked some names in the scandal that were Democrats and assume there aren't an equal or greater number of Republicans involved?

Also, why did you link to another Chiefsplanet article that discusses a different article than the one you pasted?

Curious to know who wrote this given the tone:

Enron ’s CEO Jeff Skilling went to jail and Chairman Ken Lay died, probably as a result of the stress from prosecution.

Poor, poor Ken Lay. ROFL

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:45 PM
So you cherry picked some names in the scandal that were Democrats and assume there aren't an equal or greater number of Republicans involved?

Also, why did you link to another Chiefsplanet article that discusses a different article than the one you pasted?

Two sources. Would you like a link the article I posted?

By Jerome R. Corsi WND 09/17/08 In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover, attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general. All three Obama-related executives earned millions in compensation from Fannie Mae. Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004; and Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003, according to author David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. All three have been involved in mortgage-related financial scandals. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586

Posted By: FromTheTop | September 18, 2008 at 07:16 PM

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:46 PM
So you cherry picked some names in the scandal that were Democrats and assume there aren't an equal or greater number of Republicans involved?

Are there? I don't know. Perhaps you can post a link.

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:46 PM
This guy makes a good point:

MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s his constituency. His constituency are the people who have caused the crisis. That’s who he’s representing. Now, of course, you’re not going to come in and say, “I’m going to support the people who have caused this crisis at your expense.” If you’re going to bail out your constituency, you’re going to say exactly the opposite. So what he’s saying has no reality at all.


These are the people who sang, “There’s no money for Social Security. We’re going to have to privatize it. We’re going to have to turn over your Social Security to Bear Stearns, to AIG”—to the very people who have shown how they’re mismanaging money. Imagine if the Republican program had gone through and Social Security had been privatized and these were the jokers who were managing your Social Security. They’d stick you with the losses.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/17/us_seizes_control_of_aig_with

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:47 PM
Poor, poor Ken Lay. ROFL


Ken Lay was a scumbag, but he is no worse than Franklin Raines.

Baby Lee
09-19-2008, 07:47 PM
David Frum summed it all up in three sentences:

Here is potentially the largest financial disaster in American history. The American taxpayer stands to lose billions; Democratic insiders have extracted tens of millions. If Enron was a party scandal … what is this?
And the Dems gambled that they'd get away with it because; 1) their 'honorable aim' was to get more middle class families in their own homes, and 2) the Reps are the party of 'deregulation' so they'll be blamed.


It's shameful, really.


PS - apologize in advance for typos. Something's wonky on my computer right now, going crazy with background processes, not the least of which is the weekly defrag, and it's not picking up my keystrokes. Off for now.

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:47 PM
Two sources. Would you like a link the article I posted?

By Jerome R. Corsi WND 09/17/08 In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover, attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general. All three Obama-related executives earned millions in compensation from Fannie Mae. Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004; and Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003, according to author David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. All three have been involved in mortgage-related financial scandals. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586

Posted By: FromTheTop | September 18, 2008 at 07:16 PM

Okay, I got it now.

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:48 PM
This guy makes a good point:

MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s his constituency. His constituency are the people who have caused the crisis. That’s who he’s representing. Now, of course, you’re not going to come in and say, “I’m going to support the people who have caused this crisis at your expense.” If you’re going to bail out your constituency, you’re going to say exactly the opposite. So what he’s saying has no reality at all.


These are the people who sang, “There’s no money for Social Security. We’re going to have to privatize it. We’re going to have to turn over your Social Security to Bear Stearns, to AIG”—to the very people who have shown how they’re mismanaging money. Imagine if the Republican program had gone through and Social Security had been privatized and these were the jokers who were managing your Social Security. They’d stick you with the losses.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/17/us_seizes_control_of_aig_with

He does make a good point. I agree.

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:48 PM
Isn't that what normal insurance does too? :shrug:

Sure if you paid the premiums.

Baby Lee
09-19-2008, 07:49 PM
This guy makes a good point:

MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s his constituency. His constituency are the people who have caused the crisis. That’s who he’s representing. Now, of course, you’re not going to come in and say, “I’m going to support the people who have caused this crisis at your expense.” If you’re going to bail out your constituency, you’re going to say exactly the opposite. So what he’s saying has no reality at all.


These are the people who sang, “There’s no money for Social Security. We’re going to have to privatize it. We’re going to have to turn over your Social Security to Bear Stearns, to AIG”—to the very people who have shown how they’re mismanaging money. Imagine if the Republican program had gone through and Social Security had been privatized and these were the jokers who were managing your Social Security. They’d stick you with the losses.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/17/us_seizes_control_of_aig_with

Well, that's a lie, they never proposed anything other than the choice of private investment.

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:50 PM
Okay, I got it now.

I'm not the one making this a partisan issue. All politicans with an R or D are complicit in this.

It really doesn't matter if you want to kid yourself that Barney Frank and the Dem's were not leading the parade, but you won't even admit that D's did anything at all wrong.

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:51 PM
Well, that's a lie, they never proposed anything other than the choice of private investment.

It's not a lie. Do you think they would've just let anyone handle the accounts? No, it would've been these guys, their buddies in the investment sector.

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:52 PM
And the Dems gambled that they'd get away with it because; 1) their 'honorable aim' was to get more middle class families in their own homes, and 2) the Reps are the party of 'deregulation' so they'll be blamed.


It's shameful, really.


PS - apologize in advance for typos. Something's wonky on my computer right now, going crazy with background processes, not the least of which is the weekly defrag, and it's not picking up my keystrokes. Off for now.


The main problem I have with the Left (The D's) is they never own up to all of their "good intentions paving a road to hell".

Their entire strategy is "the government f'd this up, so lets create more government to fix it".

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:52 PM
I'm not the one making this a partisan issue. All politicans with an R or D are complicit in this.

You said the Dems were more to blame, you absolutely tried to make this partisan.

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:53 PM
You said the Dems were more to blame, you absolutely tried to make this partisan.


No, I wasn't trying to make this partisan, I was stating a fact.

Baby Lee
09-19-2008, 07:55 PM
It's not a lie. Do you think they would've just let anyone handle the accounts? No, it would've been these guys, their buddies in the investment sector.

'Everyone must place their SS in the care of this chosen firm' is pretty much the precise opposite to 'you can leave your money in the government's care or invest it in the market as you see fit.'

banyon
09-19-2008, 08:02 PM
Republicans involved in financial crisis:

former Governor Jeb Bush who left office in January 2006 and soon thereafter became a well-compensated consultant to Lehman Brothers.

http://eyeonmiami.blogspot.com/2008/09/republicans-accountable-for-financial.html

AIG Chairman Greenberg, a Republican:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZjAC_Mq6LV0/SNJxy94XyeI/AAAAAAAAAVU/l2w1-kUu688/s400/maurice-greenberg.jpg

Jim Gilmore, Republican running for Congress, chair of Bear Stearns subsidiary involved in high-risk securities.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/19/9585/62050

Ralph Cioffi, Bear Stearns fund manager, heavy Gilmore contributor.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/ralph-cioffi.html

I could probably find a ton more, this is just what a cursory search turned up and seems to be just as many as your little Corsi slime piece.

patteeu
09-19-2008, 08:03 PM
Sure if you paid the premiums.

Right, I recognize that distinction. But privatized gain, socialized loss is an accepted part of our American capitalism so I doubt that it's as "[G]ood. Damned good." as Sully thought it was in post 2.

banyon
09-19-2008, 08:03 PM
No, I wasn't trying to make this partisan, I was stating a fact.

No, your opinions are not facts.

banyon
09-19-2008, 08:04 PM
Right, I recognize that distinction. But privatized gain, socialized loss is an accepted part of our American capitalism so I doubt that it's as "[G]ood. Damned good." as Sully thought it was in post 2.

I don't agree with that at all. People should be up in arms about this BS.

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 08:05 PM
Republicans involved in financial crisis:



http://eyeonmiami.blogspot.com/2008/09/republicans-accountable-for-financial.html

AIG Chairman Greenberg, a Republican:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZjAC_Mq6LV0/SNJxy94XyeI/AAAAAAAAAVU/l2w1-kUu688/s400/maurice-greenberg.jpg

Jim Gilmore, Republican running for Congress, chair of Bear Stearns subsidiary involved in high-risk securities.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/19/9585/62050

Ralph Cioffi, Bear Stearns fund manager, heavy Gilmore contributor.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/ralph-cioffi.html

I could probably find a ton more, this is just what a cursory search turned up and seems to be just as many as your little Corsi slime piece.

Fine.

Ralph Cioffi and Jim Gilmore are scumbags.

What do you think of Barney Frank and Barack Obama?

banyon
09-19-2008, 08:08 PM
'Everyone must place their SS in the care of this chosen firm' is pretty much the precise opposite to 'you can leave your money in the government's care or invest it in the market as you see fit.'


The two-word soundbyte of the day was "private accounts". Government managed (by contract) private accounts. It wasn't just "save it if you have it wherever you want to".

***SPRAYER
09-20-2008, 10:33 AM
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/09/subprime_mccain.html

But perhaps the public doesn't understand -- as I didn't until this month -- just how much of that collapse was in fact orchestrated by the socialist hijinks of congressional Democrats (including Obama), by Bill Clinton, and by Jimmy Carter: Between them, they forced banks and S&Ls into the volatile and risky sub-prime market; and then the Democrats repeatedly prevented any attempt by congressional Republicans (and by President Bush) to oversee and regulate that market.

Why would they do this? First, because Democrats have long been getting huge campaign donations from banks and other mortgage lenders; in fact, the top two recipients of such money are Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT, 95%) and Barack Obama. Both subsequently encouraged exactly the sort of loan speculation they now decry, an act that reeks of corruption. In addition, many former members of the Clinton administration, including Franklin Delano Raines, former Commerce Secretary William Daley, and Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick (of "Gorelick's wall" infamy), ended up running Fannie and Freddie or lobbying for them... and incidentally raking off tens of millions of dollars for themselves.

But the real culprit in this collapse isn't just Democratic corruption; it's the leftist demand to increase minority home ownership by lending low-income borrowers more money than they qualify to borrow, with higher mortgage payments than they are able to pay. That is, offering mortgages that violate the most basic rules of banking, as a form of "housing welfare." That is the crux of this very real, but very specific crisis.

What caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis?
One of the most evil, anti-capitalist movies ever made is also one of the most beloved by audiences and critics (including supposedly capitalist critics and pundits such as Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt): It's a Wonderful Life, directed by liberal fascist Frank Capra and starring conservative Jimmy Stewart.

In that movie, George Bailey (Stewart) is shown to be a great guy because he offers mortgages to people who cannot afford to pay them -- and then lets them slide on their payments without foreclosing. Such a wonderful life! (Well, not for the bank's investors; and not for the depositors, when the bank fails -- as it inevitably will do.) In a sense, then, Philip Van Doren Stern (author of the short story, "the Greatest Gift," that was the basis for the movie) invented the utopian idea of "sub-prime mortgages."

It's a Wonderful Life makes great theater but lousy economics, and the financial events of the past few months illustrate why.

The primary rules to prevent the collapse of banking are (1) not to lend money to unqualified borrowers -- you can't give a mortgage to someone who cannot possibly pay it -- and (2) to maintain a sufficiently high cash reserve that people who need to draw out all their money can do so -- the bank can't lend out all its depositors' money. But those rules make it more difficult for the poor (disproportionately minorities and Democrats) to obtain housing loans: They're restricted to much smaller mortgages for a smaller percentage of the total cost of the house; and because the bank can't lend out every penny, it must pick and choose to whom to lend.

This infuriates liberals, who believe the very purpose of a bank is to give the poor a chance to own their own home (even without pulling themselves out of poverty first). Thus, liberals have long championed a supposed "reform" that is actually an element of unbridled liberal fascism: That government should force private banks to make bad loans to Democratic constituents, under threat of massive fines from the SEC... or even loss of their license.

Democrats in Congress forced that act of semi-nationalization on the banks as long ago as 1977, where they pushed through Congress the anti-capitalist, Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977. That was the year that was: Democrats in the 95th Congress, still surfing the tsunami of Watergate, enjoyed a 61% majority in the Senate and a 67% majority in the House; and in Jimmy Carter, they had the most left-liberal Democrat in office since FDR. It was the perfect storm of socialism.

banyon
09-20-2008, 10:39 AM
Oh yeah, you're not trying to blame either side.

Calcountry
09-20-2008, 01:58 PM
Yes, but I would hope - and it's a strong hope - the American electorate would see the truth rather than the spin.

Where truth is concerned, banyon's proposal is utterly brilliant.What is truth?

J Diddy
09-20-2008, 02:00 PM
What is truth?


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8hGvQtumNAY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8hGvQtumNAY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Calcountry
09-20-2008, 02:05 PM
Both Franklin Raines and James Johnson , CEO’s of Fannie Mae, who played key roles in previous Democrat administrations were fired, but later went to work for the Obama campaign. Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick also was a highly paid executive at Fannie Mae but left to join the 9/11 Commission (she was chiefly responsible for the wall that prevented law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information). Gorelick is considered as a possible Attorney General in an Obama Administration.



Naw, he didn't know this was coming folks.

Calcountry
09-20-2008, 02:06 PM
Thou shall not steal, is truth.