|
|
Post by socal on Sept 5, 2008 21:54:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Sept 8, 2008 11:35:29 GMT -6
In a follow-up: US is "more communist than China": www.cnbc.com/id/26603489What say you Republicans (and self professed anti-socialist Libertarians)? |
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Sept 8, 2008 14:39:05 GMT -6
pisses me off. I'm registered libertarian, I vote libertarian, you can drop the "self-professed".
Yeah good question- How do you republocrats feel about this one?
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson emerged from days of urgent meetings with other agencies and consultation with Congress, presidential candidates and the companies themselves, to say that four weeks of studying Fannie and Freddie's books showed they couldn't be trusted to carry on themselves. Invoking the housing-finance regulation law passed by Congress this summer, Mr. Paulson said full control and oversight of Fannie and Freddie would be handed to the newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency.
-NYT
|
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Sept 8, 2008 15:52:40 GMT -6
This will all be explained by conservative economists as the only thing the government could do. These same conservatives will rip anyone who wants the government to lend a hand to Joe Q. Public, but don't take issue when the government bails out the Richie Riches of the world. Nice double standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Sept 8, 2008 18:03:07 GMT -6
In a follow-up: US is "more communist than China": www.cnbc.com/id/26603489What say you Republicans (and self professed anti-socialist Libertarians)? One sentence, snarky response of "Great, please give us more "progressive" programs where the government interferes with the market, and then blames the market when the interference causes a collapse." Please, do healthcare next. The US is no more communist today than it was several decades ago when big government created Fannie Mae or when big government spun it off with a tacit guarantee that all paper issued by it and Freddie Mac were backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Things didn't just change overnight. That guy is a fucking blowhard. Other than a handful of execs who made money off Fannie and Freddie (who will probably end up in the slammer), I don't know who these "rich" people he claims are getting bailed out are. The shares of the companies are virtually worthless and are likely owned mostly by middle class Americans through mutual funds. The bonds issued by Fannie and Freddie aren't the prime investment vehicles of the wealthy, they are primarily held by AAA bond funds and pension funds that inure to the benefit of the middle class. Trust me, any rich person who had exposure to this shit left someone else holding the bag a long time ago. Fannie and Freddie are purely socialistic machines of the poor and middle class. They were created specifically to improve liquidity in the mortgage market by pooling prole mortgages and then assigning a fictitious AAA rating to the pooled mortgages with a tacit government backing against default. And now liberals are shocked that the market realized that a random group of 1000 proles isn't as credit worthy as the US government and want to yell socialism from the rafters? Please. I guess the collapse of this great FDR plan is yet another notch in Dubya's legacy. I don't think there is any place in America for institutions like Fannie and Freddie, as they distorted the market and contributed significantly to the housing boom by making an input of housing (money for mortgages) excessively cheap. I'd say let the fucking things go under, but then the housing market would drop fast, clear, and the mess would be over and you liberals would have no massive economic calamity to use your big government ideas to "save" us from. That's no good. That said, if you dipshit liberals are too stupid to see that proles like you are the primary beneficiaries of this move and net taxpayers like me and Iowafan are the primary people who are effed in the A by this, you guys are even more hopeless than I thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Sept 8, 2008 21:27:18 GMT -6
In a follow-up: US is "more communist than China": www.cnbc.com/id/26603489What say you Republicans (and self professed anti-socialist Libertarians)? One sentence, snarky response of "Great, please give us more "progressive" programs where the government interferes with the market, and then blames the market when the interference causes a collapse." Please, do healthcare next. The US is no more communist today than it was several decades ago when big government created Fannie Mae or when big government spun it off with a tacit guarantee that all paper issued by it and Freddie Mac were backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Things didn't just change overnight. That guy is a fucking blowhard. Other than a handful of execs who made money off Fannie and Freddie (who will probably end up in the slammer), I don't know who these "rich" people he claims are getting bailed out are. The shares of the companies are virtually worthless and are likely owned mostly by middle class Americans through mutual funds. The bonds issued by Fannie and Freddie aren't the prime investment vehicles of the wealthy, they are primarily held by AAA bond funds and pension funds that inure to the benefit of the middle class. Trust me, any rich person who had exposure to this shit left someone else holding the bag a long time ago. Fannie and Freddie are purely socialistic machines of the poor and middle class. They were created specifically to improve liquidity in the mortgage market by pooling prole mortgages and then assigning a fictitious AAA rating to the pooled mortgages with a tacit government backing against default. And now liberals are shocked that the market realized that a random group of 1000 proles isn't as credit worthy as the US government and want to yell socialism from the rafters? Please. I guess the collapse of this great FDR plan is yet another notch in Dubya's legacy. I don't think there is any place in America for institutions like Fannie and Freddie, as they distorted the market and contributed significantly to the housing boom by making an input of housing (money for mortgages) excessively cheap. I'd say let the fucking things go under, but then the housing market would drop fast, clear, and the mess would be over and you liberals would have no massive economic calamity to use your big government ideas to "save" us from. That's no good. That said, if you dipshit liberals are too stupid to see that proles like you are the primary beneficiaries of this move and net taxpayers like me and Iowafan are the primary people who are effed in the A by this, you guys are even more hopeless than I thought. Don't give me your fatcat fancy lip-wriggling. There are at least a handful of people who have more money than your average prole liberal, so therefore the program must be evil and we need to engage in massive handouts to proles who've engaged in irresponsible behavior to make things "fair". Just because Americans benefit because of things like "affordable housing", and "economic stability" doesn't mean it's ok for the government to give money to some rich fatcat. It's only ok to give money to povs who've never worked a day in their lives. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Sept 8, 2008 22:06:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Sept 9, 2008 8:39:47 GMT -6
One sentence, snarky response of "Great, please give us more "progressive" programs where the government interferes with the market, and then blames the market when the interference causes a collapse." Please, do healthcare next. The US is no more communist today than it was several decades ago when big government created Fannie Mae or when big government spun it off with a tacit guarantee that all paper issued by it and Freddie Mac were backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Things didn't just change overnight. That guy is a fucking blowhard. Other than a handful of execs who made money off Fannie and Freddie (who will probably end up in the slammer), I don't know who these "rich" people he claims are getting bailed out are. The shares of the companies are virtually worthless and are likely owned mostly by middle class Americans through mutual funds. The bonds issued by Fannie and Freddie aren't the prime investment vehicles of the wealthy, they are primarily held by AAA bond funds and pension funds that inure to the benefit of the middle class. Trust me, any rich person who had exposure to this shit left someone else holding the bag a long time ago. Fannie and Freddie are purely socialistic machines of the poor and middle class. They were created specifically to improve liquidity in the mortgage market by pooling prole mortgages and then assigning a fictitious AAA rating to the pooled mortgages with a tacit government backing against default. And now liberals are shocked that the market realized that a random group of 1000 proles isn't as credit worthy as the US government and want to yell socialism from the rafters? Please. I guess the collapse of this great FDR plan is yet another notch in Dubya's legacy. I don't think there is any place in America for institutions like Fannie and Freddie, as they distorted the market and contributed significantly to the housing boom by making an input of housing (money for mortgages) excessively cheap. I'd say let the fucking things go under, but then the housing market would drop fast, clear, and the mess would be over and you liberals would have no massive economic calamity to use your big government ideas to "save" us from. That's no good. That said, if you dipshit liberals are too stupid to see that proles like you are the primary beneficiaries of this move and net taxpayers like me and Iowafan are the primary people who are effed in the A by this, you guys are even more hopeless than I thought. Don't give me your fatcat fancy lip-wriggling. There are at least a handful of people who have more money than your average prole liberal, so therefore the program must be evil and we need to engage in massive handouts to proles who've engaged in irresponsible behavior to make things "fair". Just because Americans benefit because of things like "affordable housing", and "economic stability" doesn't mean it's ok for the government to give money to some rich fatcat. It's only ok to give money to povs who've never worked a day in their lives. Ace and Gary back on the case |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Sept 20, 2008 18:49:20 GMT -6
Cross posting this... With an administration that brought us such wonderful things as Iraq & Katrina, we get these fun tidbits in the Wall Street bailout: calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-proposal.htmlFrom reading the proposed law, if you have a mortgage.... truly, your house could become the property of the US government. All I can say is WOW..... and some people were worried about Obama & dismissed us (to put it mildly) when we stated how frigging terrible Bush was.  |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Sept 20, 2008 19:57:46 GMT -6
Cross posting this... With an administration that brought us such wonderful things as Iraq & Katrina, we get these fun tidbits in the Wall Street bailout: calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-proposal.htmlFrom reading the proposed law, if you have a mortgage.... truly, your house could become the property of the US government. All I can say is WOW..... and some people were worried about Obama & dismissed us (to put it mildly) when we stated how frigging terrible Bush was. Oh no, no court review of the Secretary's decisions as to which paper to buy? Whatever will we do? I'm sure the Democrats who will have to vote for this in order for it to pass will stick up for the right of Citibank and JPMorgan to file lawsuits against the government when the Secretary decides he doesn't want to buy the paper labeled "Triple-D minus tranche of previously defaulted mortgages." Between Chevron deference that arose from SCOTUS precedent and sovereign immunity, I don't know why the hell anyone would care about the court provision, there's no remedy against the Secretary to begin with if you are an aggrieved seller of potentially toxic mortgage paper. The Secretary's powers are only valid for 2 years anyway, by the time a big law firm like mine got done churning the file to the tune of $2 million a month, that two years would have come and gone, so it's no biggie. If you took off your Bush rage glasses for 2 seconds and read the whole bill, you'd be much more upset about Section 10, which raised the debt ceiling to an even more unconscionable level and Section 12(1), which includes CMBS in the definition of mortgage related assets. That's royally fucked up. I thought this was for Joe Prole's mortgage, not the mortgage on the fucking Sears Tower, too. I own two commercial mortgage REITS and follow the commercial market with interest, and my understanding is that the commercial is still in decent shape, it's not ordinary course of business, but it's not 100% illiquid like the residential stuff is. I guess I missed the part in there where title to someone's house will pass to the government. The indentures I've seen for RMBS securities all contemplate a trustee who collects payments and bounces deadbeat proles off the property, the security holder is nothing but a passive investor. But oh my God, Bush is doing it, so it must be bad, much worse than when Roosevelt started Fannie Mae and the federal government was essentially the direct lender to the borrower. |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Sept 20, 2008 22:32:58 GMT -6
Cross posting this... With an administration that brought us such wonderful things as Iraq & Katrina, we get these fun tidbits in the Wall Street bailout: calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-proposal.htmlFrom reading the proposed law, if you have a mortgage.... truly, your house could become the property of the US government. All I can say is WOW..... and some people were worried about Obama & dismissed us (to put it mildly) when we stated how frigging terrible Bush was. Oh no, no court review of the Secretary's decisions as to which paper to buy? Whatever will we do? I'm sure the Democrats who will have to vote for this in order for it to pass will stick up for the right of Citibank and JPMorgan to file lawsuits against the government when the Secretary decides he doesn't want to buy the paper labeled "Triple-D minus tranche of previously defaulted mortgages." Between Chevron deference that arose from SCOTUS precedent and sovereign immunity, I don't know why the hell anyone would care about the court provision, there's no remedy against the Secretary to begin with if you are an aggrieved seller of potentially toxic mortgage paper. The Secretary's powers are only valid for 2 years anyway, by the time a big law firm like mine got done churning the file to the tune of $2 million a month, that two years would have come and gone, so it's no biggie. If you took off your Bush rage glasses for 2 seconds and read the whole bill, you'd be much more upset about Section 10, which raised the debt ceiling to an even more unconscionable level and Section 12(1), which includes CMBS in the definition of mortgage related assets. That's royally fucked up. I thought this was for Joe Prole's mortgage, not the mortgage on the fucking Sears Tower, too. I own two commercial mortgage REITS and follow the commercial market with interest, and my understanding is that the commercial is still in decent shape, it's not ordinary course of business, but it's not 100% illiquid like the residential stuff is. I guess I missed the part in there where title to someone's house will pass to the government. The indentures I've seen for RMBS securities all contemplate a trustee who collects payments and bounces deadbeat proles off the property, the security holder is nothing but a passive investor. But oh my God, Bush is doing it, so it must be bad, much worse than when Roosevelt started Fannie Mae and the federal government was essentially the direct lender to the borrower. I'm sure the situation itself has you looking for a standard, but please tell me which direction you were facing after your circular arguments... so I can write a response in that general direction. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Sept 21, 2008 7:42:15 GMT -6
Okay, why do you care about no court review of the Secretary's decision? Why is it relevant? Why aren't you more concerned with the fact the law covers commercial mortgage securities, when the crisis is in residential securities? Where in the bill do you infer that your house will become property of the US government? Have you read the indenture for each mortgage asset that may be sold to the government?
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Sept 21, 2008 13:17:20 GMT -6
Okay, why do you care about no court review of the Secretary's decision? Why is it relevant? ---I take it you haven't learned one thing about this administration over the past 8 years. Why aren't you more concerned with the fact the law covers commercial mortgage securities, when the crisis is in residential securities? ---The crisis is well past residential securities. Like a child playing with may colors of Play-Doh, separating the colors into their original state is next to impossible. Where in the bill do you infer that your house will become property of the US government? ---Have you read the USA PATRIOT Act, or the John Yoo memos/opinions? Have you read the indenture for each mortgage asset that may be sold to the government? ---No. Have you? If so, the press would be interested in having that info. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Sept 21, 2008 14:35:24 GMT -6
Okay, why do you care about no court review of the Secretary's decision? Why is it relevant? ---I take it you haven't learned one thing about this administration over the past 8 years. Why aren't you more concerned with the fact the law covers commercial mortgage securities, when the crisis is in residential securities? ---The crisis is well past residential securities. Like a child playing with may colors of Play-Doh, separating the colors into their original state is next to impossible. Where in the bill do you infer that your house will become property of the US government? ---Have you read the USA PATRIOT Act, or the John Yoo memos/opinions? Have you read the indenture for each mortgage asset that may be sold to the government? ---No. Have you? If so, the press would be interested in having that info. So you have no legal basis for caring about whether or not there is court review, just a quip about Dubya? I'm not surprised. That's about all the left has remaining these days. No analysis, just "Dubya bad." The majority of mortgages aren't commingled. RMBS and CMBS are very distinct assets. We'll probably find out several years from now that some bank is long CMBS backed by Ford or some other wobbly company and they were looking to put them to the Fed. This bill isn't the PATRIOT Act. Neither this bill nor the PATRIOT Act trump the federal Constitution. To the extent you believe something in this bill is unconstitutional, you should sue to prevent the bill from being enacted. To the extent you think something in the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional, you should sue to have it vacated. Congress has power to define the jurisdiction of the courts, but that grant also does not trump the Constitution. I have stated above my rationale for not losing any sleep over the lack of court review, what is your rationale for being so scared of the proposed lack of court review? |
|
