Welcome to socialism, boys and girls...

if mccain hit the bullseye in 2005, why did he say that he missed the bullseye by not anticipating the subprime crisis in 2007? mccain got involved because of the $10.6 billion accounting scandal


but that is besides the point: even if mccain had hit the fannie and freddie bullseye, the proposed reforms would not have stopped the subprime crisis...over 80% of the subprime mortgages were issued by the private banks outside of fannie and freddie...george bush leaned on fannie and freddie in 2005 to issue more loans to low income homebuyers to catch up with the private banks...fannie and freddie didn't cause this crisis - read all about it:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits - BusinessWeek

Did Fannie and Freddie Cause Mortgage Crisis - Fannie Mae Freddie Mac and Government Bailout Bill

Econbrowser: CRA and Fannie and Freddie as betes noire




in early 2005, the bush administration HUD chief and treasury secretary pressured fannie and freddie to issue more loans to low income homebuyers:

HUD Testimony - Statement of HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, 4/13/05


as for your complaint about the socialist dunce, what do you think of mccain's socialist plan to use taxpayers money to buy up bad mortgages from people who can't afford the homes they bought? he's skipping the banker-middleman and directly nationalizing the mortgages!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

i read your link - mccain was calling for *accounting* reforms for fannie and freddie...that wouldn't have done anything to stop the subprime crisis...george bush personally leaned on fannie and freddie to issue more subprime loans AFTER mccain's sponsored those reforms...mccain was nowhere to be seen then (except for his shoes poking out of george bush's ass)

bush isn't running for office...he IS in office and he owes the american people and the rest of the world a lot more face time to answer questions about what he is doing about the global crisis he helped cause

---

You blame Bush????:wtf: Blame Moody's. Blame S&P. They are the ones who broke the law. Blame government regultion that bottle necked all paper throgh only two analysts... That is why government regulation should only go so far. They just seem never to get it right.

i do blame bush, but not only bush, or only republicans...as i have stated previously, i place most of the blame on the institutions that issued risky loans and repackaged them into mortgage backed securities

allan greenspan just finished testifying that he was wrong to think financial institutions could regulate themselves...the reason gov't regulation failed is because it was too weak and it wasn't enforced...if you need proof of that, i read somewhere on the internets that all the government regulatory papers were bottlenecked through only two analysts

one of the main reasons canada didn't have a subprime crisis is because the canadian banking system is regulated more stringently...no matter who is president next year, i bet the US banking system will be more heavily regulated than the canadian system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

i do blame bush, but not only bush, or only republicans...as i have stated previously, i place most of the blame on the institutions that issued risky loans and repackaged them into mortgage backed securities

allan greenspan just finished testifying that he was wrong to think financial institutions could regulate themselves...the reason gov't regulation failed is because it was too weak and it wasn't enforced...if you need proof of that, i read somewhere on the internets that all the government regulatory papers were bottlenecked through only two analysts

one of the main reasons canada didn't have a subprime crisis is because the canadian banking system is regulated more stringently...no matter who is president next year, i bet the US banking system will be more heavily regulated than the canadian system

---

Competition was bypassed in favor of regulation, which resulted in government failure. Giving AAA ratings to SPMBS that were more than undeserving will not keep you in business long if........ firms are present to compete and expose. Now how many analysits will we have 5? Why not 7, or 9? Government oversite cannot nor will not predict with any accuracy what the market calls for to reach a specific equalibrium...

Good quotes on Ben Franklin
sounds good



Socialism is no worse off than Americas

poor capitalism SO CALLED WAY


Yes I blame Washington for 9-11!

They shoulda been watching!

may they all RIP +

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812

You blame Bush????:wtf: Blame Moody's. Blame S&P. They are the ones who broke the law. Blame government regultion that bottle necked all paper throgh only two analysts... That is why government regulation should only go so far. They just seem never to get it right.

---

Maybe a certain corrupt power in government organized that structure for that exact reason?

I have trouble understanding this. Government doesn't know how to regulate properly...so...they should regulate less?

Greenspan himself said the markets won't regulate themselves last week (or, at least, that they didn't and that's why we're where we are).

I'm confused.

Quote:

---

Greenspan himself

---

I heard his wife is like 24!!
Hes like 98!

wtf! yeah spend some tax payers money
on Victorias Secret

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeMartinez

Maybe a certain corrupt power in government organized that structure for that exact reason?

I have trouble understanding this. Government doesn't know how to regulate properly...so...they should regulate less?

Greenspan himself said the markets won't regulate themselves last week (or, at least, that they didn't and that's why we're where we are).

I'm confused.

---

In bold you will find a universal truth.

You basically sum it up in the middle of your statement. Law's are all we really need, laws that punish fraud/theft/cohesion. Make laws that call for certain standards, and allow open competition to analyze. If further analysis reveals levels of fraud etc..., then proper action can take course. Moody's and S&P gave AAA ratings to what was actually high yield junk. That is fraud in my book. If firms were legally allowed to enter the market of investment analysis, then just maybe one might have called the bluff. Regulation basically gave away a monopoly, which is why over regulation is unnecessary.

Greenspan is right in saying firms will not regulate themselves. It would cost too much in light of the money they are already paying government (taxes) to regulate for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeMartinez

I have trouble understanding this. Government doesn't know how to regulate properly...so...they should regulate less?
I'm confused.

---

Ohh...they knew exactly what they were doing...And it seems they all have connections to B. Hussein Obama, and the democratic party. "They (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) were started by Democrats, protected by Democrats, funded by Democrats, and absorbed into the government proper at the behest of their paid hacks in the Democrat party. Conservatives have advocated the demolition of these twin towers of corruption, fraud, and bribery for decades. But Democrats blocked every attempt to even hold hearings on corruption in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

Acorn, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barack Obamaâ??s Finance Chair-Penny Pritzker, All Tied To The Sub-Prime Meltdown | Right Voices

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812

In bold you will find a universal truth.

You basically sum it up in the middle of your statement. Law's are all we really need, laws that punish fraud/theft/cohesion. Make laws that call for certain standards, and allow open competition to analyze. If further analysis reveals levels of fraud etc..., then proper action can take course. Moody's and S&P gave AAA ratings to what was actually high yield junk. That is fraud in my book. If firms were legally allowed to enter the market of investment analysis, then just maybe one might have called the bluff. Regulation basically gave away a monopoly, which is why over regulation is unnecessary.

Greenspan is right in saying firms will not regulate themselves. It would cost too much in light of the money they are already paying government (taxes) to regulate for them.

---

LAWS ONLY EXIST TO PROTECT MONEY!!!



MONEY ONLY EXISTS TO PROTECT AUTHORITY!!!



AUTHORITY ONLY EXISTS BECAUSE PEOPLE NEGLECT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEMSELVES!!!





Laws arent going to help people unless those people happen to be rich!


FFS! get with the picture already folks!