20 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayThat is simple minded nonsense.
Capitalism isn't the issue here, it was piss poor leadership in Congress
forcing banks to take on bad loans.
Kelly
Congress did not force banks to take on bad loans.
that is mere partisan cant.
companies like Countrywide and Washington Mutual and a host of unregulated mortgage brokers actively, voluntarily, greedily made shoddy, bound-to-fail, non-underwritten, and downright fraudulent "liar" loans.
then, larger, even greedier Wall St firms like Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros packaged them into bundles of securities, hidden among the good loans, thus sabotaging the entire credit market.
To make things even worse, firms like AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, etc. inventively created such things as super senior credit default swaps and traded in what amounts to a tertiary market in instruments too complex for 99.9% of the population to understand. Apparently, however, greed overcame any regard for risk management throughout the system.
House of Cards 101.
Stop trying to make yourself feel comfortable in an unsecure world by resorting to simplemindedness.
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by ScriabinI don't care what you think I can or cannot think or say! If you don't
That is simple minded nonsense.
Congress did not force banks to take on bad loans.
that is mere partisan cant.
companies like Countrywide and Washington Mutual and a host of unregulated mortgage brokers actively, voluntarily, greedily made shoddy, bound-to-fail, non-underwritten, and downright fraudulent "liar" loans.
then, larger, even greedier ...[text shortened]... rying to make yourself feel comfortable in an unsecure world by resorting to simplemindedness.
like my points, go somewhere else, but I don't need or require your
permission or blessing to speak my mind or advance an opinion.
Kelly
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayof course you can have your ignorant, foolish, and downright unintelligent opinion.
I don't care what you think I can or cannot think or say! If you don't
like my points, go somewhere else, but I don't need or require your
permission or blessing to speak my mind or advance an opinion.
Kelly
you have the right to be as differently clued as you like.
I'm just trying to urge you to go crap on some other thread where the stupid people are meant to go -- this one is for grown ups.
what sets me off is that you seem every time not to be choosing an opinion; you just wear whatever happens to be in style in your weird little world.
You think (if at all) by infection, catching an opinion like a cold.
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by ScriabinYou are good about turning a discussion into a personal insult not the
of course you can have your ignorant, foolish, and downright unintelligent opinion.
you have the right to be as differently clued as you like.
I'm just trying to urge you to go crap on some other thread where the stupid people are meant to go -- this one is for grown ups.
what sets me off is that you seem every time not to be choosing an opinion; y ...[text shortened]... our weird little world.
You think (if at all) by infection, catching an opinion like a cold.
topic, it is you that have the little mind. If you are unable or unwilling
to discuss things without getting personal, that is your problem above
and beyond the issues you have just admitted to here.
Kelly
21 Mar 09
Originally posted by no1marauderNot true. Right wingers protest rich politicians getting money they don't deserve. You see, left wingers only close their eyes to the rich getting money they don't deserve or obtain by other immoral acts when they themselves are left leaning politicians.
Yes, right wingers are often concerned abour rich people getting money they don't deserve or need.
I can only hope that this fiasco opens the can of worms so that both government and the corporate world are held accountable for what occurred.
21 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayabove and beyond? did you even read any of the substantive analysis higher in the thread?
You are good about turning a discussion into a personal insult not the
topic, it is you that have the little mind. If you are unable or unwilling
to discuss things without getting personal, that is your problem above
and beyond the issues you have just admitted to here.
Kelly
I'd like you not to be a part of what was a good, solid discussion free from silly slogans picked up from TV talk shows or tabloids.
You have a tabloid, talk show kind of mind and you aren't contributing anything useful, just wasting time and space.
go away
21 Mar 09
Originally posted by whodeythere are more than 2,000 FBI investigations ongoing concerning corporate and mortgage fraud and more being opened every week, according to the head of the agency in testimony before Congress. That usually means a serious effort to hold some people accountable is gaining momentum.
Not true. Right wingers protest rich politicians getting money they don't deserve. You see, left wingers only close their eyes to the rich getting money they don't deserve or obtain by other immoral acts when they themselves are left leaning politicians.
I can only hope that this fiasco opens the can of worms so that both government and the corporate world are held accountable for what occurred.
a colleague said she had some friends who worked in Goldman Sachs and these people have said they are afraid due to the torches and pitch forks atmosphere boiling up around the AIG bonus situation.
The bonus situation is the least of it. but it gains traction because at least the numbers are small enough to grasp.
how do you even begin to comprehend, let alone count $2 or $3 trillion?
if that's what was coming out of a slot machine, I'd not stay too close to the machine. now, $2 or $3 million, that you can get your mind around and so folks can get mad if they like.
I'd rather get even and stop this from happening again.
21 Mar 09
Originally posted by ScriabinIs anyone still buying securitized mortgages?
there are more than 2,000 FBI investigations ongoing concerning corporate and mortgage fraud and more being opened every week, according to the head of the agency in testimony before Congress. That usually means a serious effort to hold some people accountable is gaining momentum.
a colleague said she had some friends who worked in Goldman Sachs and the ...[text shortened]... so folks can get mad if they like.
I'd rather get even and stop this from happening again.
If not, who in their right mind will buy these things again? How could they possibly get AAA ratings again?
In other words, won't this not happen if mortgages are not securitized in the future?
21 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ScriabinAgain, who do you think you are? I do not care one wit if you like or
above and beyond? did you even read any of the substantive analysis higher in the thread?
I'd like you not to be a part of what was a good, solid discussion free from silly slogans picked up from TV talk shows or tabloids.
You have a tabloid, talk show kind of mind and you aren't contributing anything useful, just wasting time and space.
go away
dislike anything I have to say. You don't want to have an exchange
with me, ignore me, but simply suggesting because YOU’RE not
pleased with my input means I should stop posting in a thread I
started, I'd say your arrogance and self importance is way beyond
normal.
Kelly
21 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayLook, you started a thread about AIG so you could complain about politicians getting a raise.
but simply suggesting because YOU’RE not
pleased with my input means I should stop posting in a thread I
started, I'd say your arrogance and self importance is way beyond
normal.
Kelly
Your views about AIG are just wrong. There are no grey areas. You either understand what is going on or you don't. And you don't.
Until you educate yourself about the situation, you are just wasting your time and everyone else's time. Scrarbin is correct. You are not.
So please, read some of his posts about the history. They are truthful and mostly without bias. You will learn something. If you don't understand something, ask.
21 Mar 09
Originally posted by uzlessI know this, they don't deserve the bonus, but that isn't the point!
Look, you started a thread about AIG so you could complain about politicians getting a raise.
Your views about AIG are just wrong. There are no grey areas. You either understand what is going on or you don't. And you don't.
Until you educate yourself about the situation, you are just wasting your time and everyone else's time. Scrarbin is correct. ...[text shortened]... and mostly without bias. You will learn something. If you don't understand something, ask.
The point is a contract was in place, Congress knew about this and
had a chance to do something about it, yet didn't, and not only did
not, actually made sure it happened! So why are we going after the
employees of AIG, and not Congress? AIG employee contracts could
have been voided by Congress, had Congress done due diligents
to what they were doing with tax payer money! I've no problem with
anyone getting paid what they work for, I don't care how much money
anyone makes, more power to them, and to you if you can get it.
I do have a huge issue with Congress who does not stop the bonus
when it was in their power to do so, and cries over the fact it happened
as if they knew nothing about this!
Kelly
21 Mar 09
Even today's revelation about the massive discrepancy in what AIG actually paid in bonuses fails to illuminate or help most people to get what needs to be done.
It might feel good to go after people rightly or wrongly perceived to be the beneficiaries of undeserved taxpayer funded bailout money as "retention" bonuses or whatever the company agreed to. In jest, I've suggested giving them the Lord Monmouth treatment -- he's the English nobleman the Beefeaters at the Tower of London will tell you was executed by an incompetent axeman -- took 40 whacks to get his head off. But, as you can see, this is a sick joke, not a serious way to address the underlying economic collapse.
The bonus issue provides lawmakers from both parties grist for their simplistic theatrics -- I've watched the various hearings on CSPAN (I think many of those sessions are available on the net as videos you can watch). In these hearings, as one would expect, you see a lot of silly grandstanding by Democrats and Republicans who simply want to play to the mob.
John Stewart had a really funny piece this week where he points this out with video clips from the hearing for which my wife had to prepare testimony for the Director of a key banking regulator. That one is also probably available on the net from the Daily Show's website.
It has become so ludicrous that the congressmen even went after the current CEO of AIG, Mr. Liddy, who was drafted by the Fed to come in AFTER the bonus contracts had been signed. He who works for $1 -- no compensation at all.
It will be Sen Dodd and Sec Geithner who take the fall for the bonuses, but the issue is beside the point.
The main issue is the failure of regulators to regulate and enforce the rules. Congress has failed to perform oversight. The White House has failed throughout the last 4 Administrations to make regulatory enforcement a priority.
The result? Our economy has collapsed, our food is unsafe, our infrastructure is crumbling, our education and health care systems are failing to do the job.
We don't need to take a terribly prescriptive approach to regulation. We dont need more and more difficult or complex regulations. We need to enforce what we have and plug whatever gaps there may be.
An example of such a gap: mortgage brokers, who created much of the subprime mortgage mess, are unregulated. CDS are unregulated.
But if the regulators had enforced the rules, I doubt the banks would have gone down, nor would Fannie and Freddie. They failed due to lax enforcement and oversight.
All this bonus crap provides the smoke for both regulators and congress to shift the blame.
21 Mar 09
Originally posted by ScriabinI agree with a lot of what you said here!
Even today's revelation about the massive discrepancy in what AIG actually paid in bonuses fails to illuminate or help most people to get what needs to be done.
It might feel good to go after people rightly or wrongly perceived to be the beneficiaries of undeserved taxpayer funded bailout money as "retention" bonuses or whatever the company agreed to. I ...[text shortened]... this bonus crap provides the smoke for both regulators and congress to shift the blame.
The things I find so scary is 'our' attitude towards those AIG guys, I do
believe it was/is Congress' fault that got us here. We are allowing the
government to attack citizens, single them out for simply having a
GREAT contract as far as I'm concern. Would we want unions to be
treated that way, or anyone one else? Either our rule of law proctects
all of us, or none of us are protected.
Kelly
22 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ScriabinAnd who helped unregulate these corporations bright boy? Was it not Congress?
That is simple minded nonsense.
Congress did not force banks to take on bad loans.
that is mere partisan cant.
companies like Countrywide and Washington Mutual and a host of unregulated mortgage brokers actively, voluntarily, greedily made shoddy, bound-to-fail, non-underwritten, and downright fraudulent "liar" loans.
then, larger, even greedier ...[text shortened]... rying to make yourself feel comfortable in an unsecure world by resorting to simplemindedness.
Having said that, I suppose you are now going to say that it was all Republicans who were at fault?