[Vinylanach]

Kind of in the same ball park as "you people," don't ya think?

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

Kind of in the same ball park as "you people," don't ya think?

Y'all need to git y'selves a real job, by cracky!

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Vinylanach wrote:

Kind of in the same ball park as "you people," don't ya think?

McCain's strategy is to belittle Obama: naive, wet behind the ears, etc.

I wonder how that will work out for him.

http://www.fritzliess.com/assets_c/2...at_one_01.html

Stephen

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:

In article
,
Vinylanach wrote:

Kind of in the same ball park as "you people," don't ya think?

McCain's strategy is to belittle Obama: naive, wet behind the ears, etc.

I wonder how that will work out for him.

I'm REALLY HOPING that they continue the "hinting that Obama is a
terrorist sympathizer and is dangerous" line of attack. Anyone who
would swallow that crap is already voting for McCain, and it turns off
undecided and normal people, IMO. It truly makes them look desperate.

Did you hear that Cindy McCain called the Obama campaign the "nastiest
ever"? lol

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

Did you hear that Cindy McCain called the Obama campaign the "nastiest
ever"? lol

What are you laughing at? You're probably in favor [gasp!] sex ed for
children.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 8, 11:31*am, Jenn wrote:

I'm REALLY HOPING that they continue the "hinting that Obama is a
terrorist sympathizer and is dangerous" line of attack. *Anyone who
would swallow that crap is already voting for McCain, and it turns off
undecided and normal people, IMO. *It truly makes them look desperate.

OTOH, I heard a guy on Sunday say that Omaba was a Muslim, so some of
that does seem to stick. Aren't there still something like 25% who
think that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

[Harry Lavo]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
...
On Oct 8, 11:31 am, Jenn wrote:

I'm REALLY HOPING that they continue the "hinting that Obama is a
terrorist sympathizer and is dangerous" line of attack. Anyone who
would swallow that crap is already voting for McCain, and it turns off
undecided and normal people, IMO. It truly makes them look desperate.

OTOH, I heard a guy on Sunday say that Omaba was a Muslim, so some of
that does seem to stick. Aren't there still something like 25% who
think that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

********************************************8

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly destroying
this country through their voting choices. Was it Franklin or Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because people
did not educate themselves?

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:

In article
,
Vinylanach wrote:

Kind of in the same ball park as "you people," don't ya think?

McCain's strategy is to belittle Obama: naive, wet behind the ears, etc.

I wonder how that will work out for him.

I'm REALLY HOPING that they continue the "hinting that Obama is a
terrorist sympathizer and is dangerous" line of attack. Anyone who
would swallow that crap is already voting for McCain, and it turns off
undecided and normal people, IMO. It truly makes them look desperate.

Did you hear that Cindy McCain called the Obama campaign the "nastiest
ever"? lol

My laughter is currently for Jerome "Swiftboat" Corsi's misadventures in
Kenya.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Oct, 10:00, Vinylanach wrote:
Kind of in the same ball park as "you people," don't ya think?



"that one". I like it!
How come our "that one" hasn't posted for a week?
Is locked in his bedroom crying over his lost 401k?
Did he have his meager savings parked in Wachiovia, AIG and
Constellation Energy?
Is he online, right now, trying to dump his sound cards on Ebay at 10
cents on the dollar?

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Oct, 12:31, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*MiNe 109 * wrote:

In article
,
*Vinylanach wrote:

Kind of in the same ball park as "you people," don't ya think?

McCain's strategy is to belittle Obama: naive, wet behind the ears, etc..

I wonder how that will work out for him.

I'm REALLY HOPING that they continue the "hinting that Obama is a
terrorist sympathizer and is dangerous" line of attack. *Anyone who
would swallow that crap is already voting for McCain, and it turns off
undecided and normal people, IMO. *It truly makes them look desperate.



Its stupid tactics, people don't care about that when the dow is
tanking more than an average of 300 points per day, for
a week

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

[Signal[_2_]]

Clyde Slick wrote:

Kind of in the same ball park as "you people," don't ya think?



"that one". I like it!
How come our "that one" hasn't posted for a week?
Is locked in his bedroom crying over his lost 401k?
Did he have his meager savings parked in Wachiovia, AIG and
Constellation Energy?
Is he online, right now, trying to dump his sound cards on Ebay at 10
cents on the dollar?

Arnold Krooger? Probably too busy playing with these :

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=260140367719







--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Signal said:

Is he online, right now, trying to dump his sound cards on Ebay at 10
cents on the dollar?

Arnold Krooger? Probably too busy playing with these :
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=260140367719


If Turdborg were shopping on ebay, I'm sure he'd want to spring for some
of these:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=400001474301

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.


boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.


boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 9, 12:34*pm, ScottW wrote:

You may now return to your usual delusional ignorant rants.

Welcome back, 2pid. I hope the detox program was successful this time.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 9, 2:28*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:56*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:34*pm, ScottW wrote:

You may now return to your usual delusional ignorant rants.

Welcome back, 2pid. I hope the detox program was successful this time.

*Right on cue.

So has Palin "fired you up", 2pid?

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Oct, 10:34, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:





On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.

Stephen-

I recognize both rep and dem mistakes
you are blinded to the ones on the dem side.
you can't fix the problem if you don't recognize waht
it is and what caused it, in totality

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Oct, 13:34, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 9, 7:34*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:





In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.

*Good point.

*"The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas)
and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The
bills passed the Senate on a 54-44 vote along party lines (53
Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[1] After
passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference
committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House
versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans
agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and
address certain privacy concerns.[2] On November 4, the final bill
resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 [3] and by the
House 362-57.[4] This 'veto proof legislation' was signed into law by
President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services
Modernization Act," which repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act
prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment,
commercial banking, and insurance services. The bill was killed in
1998 because Senator Phil Gramm wanted the bill to expand the number
of banks which no longer would be covered by the CRA. He also demanded
full disclosure of any financial deals which community groups (LIKE
ACORN) *had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion." In 1999
Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer broke another
deadlock by forcing a compromise between Gramm and the Clinton
administration which wanted to prevent banks from expanding into
insurance or securities unless they were compliant with the CRA. In
the final compromise, the CRA would cover bank expansions into new
lines of business, community groups would have to disclose certain
kinds of financial deals with banks, and smaller banks would be
reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance.[28][29][30] On signing
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, President Clinton said that it,
"establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we
will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...#Legislative_c...

The root of the problem was opening the door to subprime mortgages
which CRA certainly encouraged if not directly enabled.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley expanded the impact of the problem by consolidating
banking services under one roof.
The bubble of housing prices was fueled by a subprime frenzy which was
at least encouraged by the CRA and other like minded legislation to
increase home ownership among the poor. *These efforts forced banks to
lend money to non credit worthy customers. *Other banks not required
to comply with CRA could not pass up *the massive short term profits
subprime lending was offering as the cost of money dipped to near zero
( the Fed overreacted to the recession of 2000-2002) and retain share
value when other banks were showing such huge profits and drawing away
investors/shareholders.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for example had no business in buying
subprime loans and contributing to the eventual collapse of morgage
backed securities.
But they started on that path with strong encouragement from their
democratic backers in the house and senate who had embarked on a
socialist program of home ownership

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/80/fanny.html

"For the years 1993 and 1994, the GSE Act established a set of
escalating performance goals that measured, as a percentage of the
GSEs' total business, the availability of housing financing for low-
and moderate-income families; for very-low-income families; and for
families living in central cities, rural areas, and other underserved
areas. The Act directed HUD to examine these goals and the assumptions
upon which they are based and then develop new goals for 1995, 1996,
and beyond.

The proposed regulations set minimum acceptable activity in numerical
terms for housing goals in each of the three categories. Goals are set
in each category for both single family homeownership and multi-family
mortgages. In each case, the proposed rule increases from the previous
two years the level of affordable housing business each GSE must set.

The proposed regulations differ from the interim regulations in three
significant ways: the definition of an underserved area; a requirement
that the GSEs inform HUD of fair housing violations by lenders; and an
expanded interpretation of when the GSEs are required to take new
business activity for review and approval to the Secretary of HUD. "

Additionally the securitization of mortgages made the acceptance of
credit risk a game of musical chairs, who was left holding the
securities when the prices started to fall.
This is of course aggravated in the extreme by the simple fact that
mortgage backed securities aren't valued by how much money they will
make via mortgage interest minus defaults, but by how much they can be
sold on the security market at any point in time.
This is the "mark to market" issue often discussed of late.
When investors lost faith that credit rating agencies had any abilty
to estimate the number of loans in a package that will default nor the
debt to equity (value of the homes) ratio, the market values of the
securities plunged far below what they will ultimately earn from
mortgage interest income.

You may now return to your usual delusional ignorant rants.

ScottW-

"at least" his are short, inlike sHHH'S

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Oct, 15:48, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:28*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 9, 10:56*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:34*pm, ScottW wrote:

You may now return to your usual delusional ignorant rants.

Welcome back, 2pid. I hope the detox program was successful this time..

*Right on cue.

So has Palin "fired you up", 2pid?

Sexually?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 9, 3:01*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 9 Oct, 15:48, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:28*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 9, 10:56*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:34*pm, ScottW wrote:

You may now return to your usual delusional ignorant rants.

Welcome back, 2pid. I hope the detox program was successful this time.

*Right on cue.

So has Palin "fired you up", 2pid?

Sexually?

Palin is no dog. LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 9, 2:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 9 Oct, 10:34, MiNe 109 * wrote:





In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.

I recognize both rep and dem mistakes
you are blinded to the ones on the dem side.
you can't fix the problem if you don't recognize waht
it is and what caused it, in totality

The core, basic, first problem was deregulation.

Everything that followed was a symptom of that fundamental mistake.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 9, 3:00*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 9 Oct, 13:34, ScottW wrote:





On Oct 9, 7:34*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.

*Good point.

*"The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas)
and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The
bills passed the Senate on a 54-44 vote along party lines (53
Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[1] After
passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference
committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House
versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans
agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and
address certain privacy concerns.[2] On November 4, the final bill
resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 [3] and by the
House 362-57.[4] This 'veto proof legislation' was signed into law by
President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services
Modernization Act," which repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act
prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment,
commercial banking, and insurance services. The bill was killed in
1998 because Senator Phil Gramm wanted the bill to expand the number
of banks which no longer would be covered by the CRA. He also demanded
full disclosure of any financial deals which community groups (LIKE
ACORN) *had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion." In 1999
Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer broke another
deadlock by forcing a compromise between Gramm and the Clinton
administration which wanted to prevent banks from expanding into
insurance or securities unless they were compliant with the CRA. In
the final compromise, the CRA would cover bank expansions into new
lines of business, community groups would have to disclose certain
kinds of financial deals with banks, and smaller banks would be
reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance.[28][29][30] On signing
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, President Clinton said that it,
"establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we
will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...#Legislative_c...

The root of the problem was opening the door to subprime mortgages
which CRA certainly encouraged if not directly enabled.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley expanded the impact of the problem by consolidating
banking services under one roof.
The bubble of housing prices was fueled by a subprime frenzy which was
at least encouraged by the CRA and other like minded legislation to
increase home ownership among the poor. *These efforts forced banks to
lend money to non credit worthy customers. *Other banks not required
to comply with CRA could not pass up *the massive short term profits
subprime lending was offering as the cost of money dipped to near zero
( the Fed overreacted to the recession of 2000-2002) and retain share
value when other banks were showing such huge profits and drawing away
investors/shareholders.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for example had no business in buying
subprime loans and contributing to the eventual collapse of morgage
backed securities.
But they started on that path with strong encouragement from their
democratic backers in the house and senate who had embarked on a
socialist program of home ownership

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/80/fanny.html

"For the years 1993 and 1994, the GSE Act established a set of
escalating performance goals that measured, as a percentage of the
GSEs' total business, the availability of housing financing for low-
and moderate-income families; for very-low-income families; and for
families living in central cities, rural areas, and other underserved
areas. The Act directed HUD to examine these goals and the assumptions
upon which they are based and then develop new goals for 1995, 1996,
and beyond.

The proposed regulations set minimum acceptable activity in numerical
terms for housing goals in each of the three categories. Goals are set
in each category for both single family homeownership and multi-family
mortgages. In each case, the proposed rule increases from the previous
two years the level of affordable housing business each GSE must set.

The proposed regulations differ from the interim regulations in three
significant ways: the definition of an underserved area; a requirement
that the GSEs inform HUD of fair housing violations by lenders; and an
expanded interpretation of when the GSEs are required to take new
business activity for review and approval to the Secretary of HUD. "

Additionally the securitization of mortgages made the acceptance of
credit risk a game of musical chairs, who was left holding the
securities when the prices started to fall.
This is of course aggravated in the extreme by the simple fact that
mortgage backed securities aren't valued by how much money they will
make via mortgage interest minus defaults, but by how much they can be
sold on the security market at any point in time.
This is the "mark to market" issue often discussed of late.
When investors lost faith that credit rating agencies had any abilty
to estimate the number of loans in a package that will default nor the
debt to equity (value of the homes) ratio, the market values of the
securities plunged far below what they will ultimately earn from
mortgage interest income.

You may now return to your usual delusional ignorant rants.

ScottW-

"at least" his are short, inlike sHHH'S

....said Clyde responding to 2pid's 5,000 word delusional and ignorant
rant. LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Oct, 16:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 9 Oct, 10:34, MiNe 109 * wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.
I recognize both rep and dem mistakes
you are blinded to the ones on the dem side.
you can't fix the problem if you don't recognize waht
it is and what caused it, in totality

The core, basic, first problem was deregulation.

Everything that followed was a symptom of that fundamental mistake.-

the core mistake was sub prime loans
'deregulation' is a vaguery
there are all kiinds of regs, some good, some bad.
regs cover lots of areas, some are consumer protection based,
some are protectionsit, some are
anticompetitive and some are antifraud.
It bad to get rid of the anti fraud and consumer based ones, and
generally good to lessen the protectionist and anticompetitive ones.
and i say generally, cause all circumsatnces are different.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Oct, 16:24, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:00*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 9 Oct, 13:34, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 9, 7:34*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.

*Good point.

*"The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas)
and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The
bills passed the Senate on a 54-44 vote along party lines (53
Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[1] After
passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference
committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House
versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans
agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and
address certain privacy concerns.[2] On November 4, the final bill
resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 [3] and by the
House 362-57.[4] This 'veto proof legislation' was signed into law by
President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services
Modernization Act," which repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act
prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment,
commercial banking, and insurance services. The bill was killed in
1998 because Senator Phil Gramm wanted the bill to expand the number
of banks which no longer would be covered by the CRA. He also demanded
full disclosure of any financial deals which community groups (LIKE
ACORN) *had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion." In 1999
Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer broke another
deadlock by forcing a compromise between Gramm and the Clinton
administration which wanted to prevent banks from expanding into
insurance or securities unless they were compliant with the CRA. In
the final compromise, the CRA would cover bank expansions into new
lines of business, community groups would have to disclose certain
kinds of financial deals with banks, and smaller banks would be
reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance.[28][29][30] On signing
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, President Clinton said that it,
"establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we
will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...#Legislative_c....

The root of the problem was opening the door to subprime mortgages
which CRA certainly encouraged if not directly enabled.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley expanded the impact of the problem by consolidating
banking services under one roof.
The bubble of housing prices was fueled by a subprime frenzy which was
at least encouraged by the CRA and other like minded legislation to
increase home ownership among the poor. *These efforts forced banks to
lend money to non credit worthy customers. *Other banks not required
to comply with CRA could not pass up *the massive short term profits
subprime lending was offering as the cost of money dipped to near zero
( the Fed overreacted to the recession of 2000-2002) and retain share
value when other banks were showing such huge profits and drawing away
investors/shareholders.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for example had no business in buying
subprime loans and contributing to the eventual collapse of morgage
backed securities.
But they started on that path with strong encouragement from their
democratic backers in the house and senate who had embarked on a
socialist program of home ownership

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/80/fanny.html

"For the years 1993 and 1994, the GSE Act established a set of
escalating performance goals that measured, as a percentage of the
GSEs' total business, the availability of housing financing for low-
and moderate-income families; for very-low-income families; and for
families living in central cities, rural areas, and other underserved
areas. The Act directed HUD to examine these goals and the assumptions
upon which they are based and then develop new goals for 1995, 1996,
and beyond.

The proposed regulations set minimum acceptable activity in numerical
terms for housing goals in each of the three categories. Goals are set
in each category for both single family homeownership and multi-family
mortgages. In each case, the proposed rule increases from the previous
two years the level of affordable housing business each GSE must set.

The proposed regulations differ from the interim regulations in three
significant ways: the definition of an underserved area; a requirement
that the GSEs inform HUD of fair housing violations by lenders; and an
expanded interpretation of when the GSEs are required to take new
business activity for review and approval to the Secretary of HUD. "

Additionally the securitization of mortgages made the acceptance of
credit risk a game of musical chairs, who was left holding the
securities when the prices started to fall.
This is of course aggravated in the extreme by the simple fact that
mortgage backed securities aren't valued by how much money they will
make via mortgage interest minus defaults, but by how much they can be
sold on the security market at any point in time.
This is the "mark to market" issue often discussed of late.
When investors lost faith that credit rating agencies had any abilty
to estimate the number of loans in a package that will default nor the
debt to equity (value of the homes) ratio, the market values of the
securities plunged far below what they will ultimately earn from
mortgage interest income.

You may now return to your usual delusional ignorant rants.

ScottW-

"at least" his are short, inlike sHHH'S

...said Clyde responding to 2pid's 5,000 word delusional and ignorant
rant. LOL!-

'at least" you are at your least.' For now, "at least".

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

'deregulation' is a vaguery

I won't ask if you're drunk or sober anymore. The answer has become
obvious.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 9, 5:29*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 9 Oct, 16:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 10:34, MiNe 109 * wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.
I recognize both rep and dem mistakes
you are blinded to the ones on the dem side.
you can't fix the problem if you don't recognize waht
it is and what caused it, in totality

The core, basic, first problem was deregulation.

Everything that followed was a symptom of that fundamental mistake.-

the core mistake was sub prime loans
'deregulation' is a vaguery
there are all kiinds of regs, some good, some bad.
regs cover lots of areas, some are consumer protection based,
some are protectionsit, some are
anticompetitive and some are antifraud.
It bad to get rid of the anti fraud and consumer based ones, and
generally good to lessen the protectionist and anticompetitive ones.
and i say generally, cause all circumsatnces are different.

If you look at what 2pid posted in trying to blame the Dems, did you
note this?

**************************************
Gramm-Leach-Bliley expanded the impact of the problem by
consolidating
banking services under one roof.
The bubble of housing prices was fueled by a subprime frenzy which
was
at least encouraged by the CRA and other like minded legislation to
increase home ownership among the poor. These efforts forced banks
to
lend money to non credit worthy customers. Other banks not required
to comply with CRA could not pass up the massive short term profits
subprime lending was offering as the cost of money dipped to near
zero
( the Fed overreacted to the recession of 2000-2002) and retain share
value when other banks were showing such huge profits and drawing
away
investors/shareholders.
**************************************

"At least encouraged". "Could not pass up the massive short-term
profits".

Removing the regulations concerning banking were, and are, a bad deal.
The market is all about greed. A deregulated market can only work if
things like short-term profit are not the only driving force. The CEOs
lack integrity as a whole. Look up Tom Petters as a very recent
example.

The dream of conservatives to return to the Wild West is coming to an
end. People are seeing through it now.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 9, 5:31*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 9 Oct, 16:24, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

...said Clyde responding to 2pid's 5,000 word delusional and ignorant
rant. LOL!-

'at least" you are at your least.' For now, "at least".

Not all points can be fleshed out in the 5-10 second sound bites
conservatives are accustomed to.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

You may now return to your usual delusional ignorant rants.

Good research, if a bit surfacey. Did you happen to notice the relative
default rates of CRA vs other mortgages? Hint: it doesn't support your
argument.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 10:34, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:





On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.

Stephen-

I recognize both rep and dem mistakes
you are blinded to the ones on the dem side.
you can't fix the problem if you don't recognize waht
it is and what caused it, in totality

And there's nothing one-sided about your assessment, right?

Recapitalization and reregulation should do the trick.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 15:48, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:28*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 9, 10:56*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:34*pm, ScottW wrote:

You may now return to your usual delusional ignorant rants.

Welcome back, 2pid. I hope the detox program was successful this time.

*Right on cue.

So has Palin "fired you up", 2pid?

Sexually?

A la Rick Lowry.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 16:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 9 Oct, 10:34, MiNe 109 * wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be
because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.
I recognize both rep and dem mistakes
you are blinded to the ones on the dem side.
you can't fix the problem if you don't recognize waht
it is and what caused it, in totality

The core, basic, first problem was deregulation.

Everything that followed was a symptom of that fundamental mistake.-

the core mistake was sub prime loans
'deregulation' is a vaguery
there are all kiinds of regs, some good, some bad.

I'm sure we mean the ones that directly affect the subject under
discussion.

regs cover lots of areas, some are consumer protection based,
some are protectionsit, some are
anticompetitive and some are antifraud.
It bad to get rid of the anti fraud and consumer based ones, and
generally good to lessen the protectionist and anticompetitive ones.
and i say generally, cause all circumsatnces are different.

Specifically, the ones that caused this mess.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

Exactly what "deregulation" law allowed
banks to originate loans to non credit worthy customers?

The problem is deregulation that allowed banks/financial institutions to
create financial instruments based on mortgages and insure them with
derivatives.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

Exactly what "deregulation" law allowed
banks to originate loans to non credit worthy customers?

The problem is deregulation that allowed banks/financial institutions to
create financial instruments based on mortgages and insure them with
derivatives.

If you keep talking like that, Scottie's head may explode. Are you
prepared to shoulder that responsibility?

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MiNe 109 said:

Exactly what "deregulation" law allowed
banks to originate loans to non credit worthy customers?

The problem is deregulation that allowed banks/financial institutions to
create financial instruments based on mortgages and insure them with
derivatives.

If you keep talking like that, Scottie's head may explode. Are you
prepared to shoulder that responsibility?

He's like an old cop a week away from retirement...

Stephen

[avidlistener]

On Oct 9, 7:34*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.

Stephen

Whatever you do don't check factcheck.org and get a complete picture
of the mess. You obviously don't want to know that there is blame
enough to go around on both sides and trying to single out just one
side or person is just plain nuts.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

duh-Mikey blithered:

You obviously don't want to know that there is blame
enough to go around on both sides and trying to single out just one
side or person is just plain nuts.

Speaking of Gordian knots, how 'bout that Krooborg? Mr. **** has been
bitching for years that he is hated and despised throughout Usenet because
of me and others. That's "just plain nuts", right Mikey?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Yapper tries to rescue the Bug Eater from a morass of all-consuming
dementia.

duh-Mikey blithered:

You obviously don't want to know that there is blame
enough to go around on both sides and trying to single out just one
side or person is just plain nuts.

Speaking of Gordian knots, how 'bout that Krooborg? Mr. **** has been
bitching for years that he is hated and despised throughout Usenet because
of me and others. That's "just plain nuts", right Mikey?

What's nuts is how you've become so emotionally dependent on Arny.

Arnii would lecture you on Schopenhauer's list if you hadn't killed him.
Why did you kill the Krooborg, Witless?

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
avidlistener wrote:

On Oct 9, 7:34*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.

Stephen

Whatever you do don't check factcheck.org and get a complete picture
of the mess. You obviously don't want to know that there is blame
enough to go around on both sides and trying to single out just one
side or person is just plain nuts.

Thanks for the tip!

Stephen