Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Don't you notice that he gets far more into those topics that show his viewpoint as being invalid, and they always devolve into this stuff? You think this is not on purpose? > You know, jon, I think you may be right. I enjoy discussions with other conservatives because they're actual discussions. Not this derailing nonsense. It probably is on purpose. If he's going to act like a troll, maybe he should be treated like one, and ignored. So getting back on topic... This is the first thing I found when I googled - it's a little "conspiracy theory" for me, but it is interesting. It ties the subprime mess with the downfall of Elliot Spitzer... "Steering,’ sub-prime loans with usurious kickers, fake inducements to over-borrow, called ‘fraudulent conveyance’ or ‘predatory lending’ under US law, were almost completely forbidden in the olden days (Clinton Administration and earlier) by federal regulators and state laws as nothing more than fancy loan-sharking. But when the Bush regime took over, Countrywide and its banking brethren were told to party hearty – it was OK now to steer’m, fake’m, charge’m and take’m. But there was this annoying party-pooper. The Attorney General of New York, Eliot Spitzer, who sued these guys to a fare-thee-well. Or tried to. Instead of regulating the banks that had run amok, Bush’s regulators went on the warpath against Spitzer and states attempting to stop predatory practices. Making an unprecedented use of the legal power of “federal pre-emption,†Bush-bots ordered the states to NOT enforce their consumer protection laws. Indeed, the feds actually filed a lawsuit to block Spitzer’s investigation of ugly racial mortgage steering. Bush’s banking buddies were especially steamed that Spitzer hammered bank practices across the nation using New York State laws. Spitzer not only took on Countrywide, he took on their predatory enablers in the investment banking community. Behind Countrywide was the Mother Shark, its funder and now owner, Bank of America. Others joined the sharkfest: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup’s Citibank made mortgage usury their major profit centers. They did this through a bit of financial legerdemain called “securitization.†What that means is that they took a bunch of junk mortgages, like the Grinning's, loans about to go down the toilet and re-packaged them into “tranches†of bonds which were stamped “AAA†- top grade - by bond rating agencies. These gold-painted turds were sold as sparkling safe investments to US school district pension funds and town governments in Finland (really). When the housing bubble burst and the paint flaked off, investors were left with the poop and the bankers were left with bonuses. Countrywide’s top man, Angelo Mozilo, will ‘earn’ a $77 million buy-out bonus this year on top of the $656 million - over half a billion dollars – he pulled in from 1998 through 2007. But there were rumblings that the party would soon be over. Angry regulators, burned investors and the weight of millions of homes about to be boarded up were causing the sharks to sink. Countrywide’s stock was down 50%, and Citigroup was off 38%, not pleasing to the Gulf sheiks who now control its biggest share blocks. Then, on Wednesday of this week, the unthinkable happened. Carlyle Capital went bankrupt. Who? That’s Carlyle as in Carlyle Group. James Baker, Senior Counsel. Notable partners, former and past: George Bush, the Bin Laden family and more dictators, potentates, pirates and presidents than you can count. The Fed had to act. Bernanke opened the vault and dumped $200 billion on the poor little suffering bankers. They got the public treasure – and got to keep the Grinning’s house. There was no ‘quid’ of a foreclosure moratorium for the ‘pro quo’ of public bailout. Not one family was saved – but not one banker was left behind. Every mortgage sharking operation shot up in value. Mozilo’s Countrywide stock rose 17% in one day. The Citi sheiks saw their company’s stock rise $10 billion in an afternoon. And that very same day the bail-out was decided – what a coinkydink! – the man called, ‘The Sheriff of Wall Street’ was cuffed. Spitzer was silenced. Do I believe the banks called Justice and said, “Take him down today!†Naw, that’s not how the system works. But the big players knew that unless Spitzer was taken out, he would create enough ruckus to spoil the party. Headlines in the financial press – one was “Wall Street Declares War on Spitzer†- made clear to Bush’s enforcers at Justice who their number one target should be. And it wasn’t Bin Laden. It was the night of February 13 when Spitzer made the bone-headed choice to order take-out in his Washington Hotel room. He had just finished signing these words for the Washington Post about predatory loans: “Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.†Bush, Spitzer said right in the headline, was the “Predator Lenders’ Partner in Crime.†The President, said Spitzer, was a fugitive from justice. And Spitzer was in Washington to launch a campaign to take on the Bush regime and the biggest financial powers on the planet. Spitzer wrote, “When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners the Bush administration will not be judged favorably.†But now, the Administration can rest assured that this love story – of Bush and his bankers - will not be told by history at all – now that the Sheriff of Wall Street has fallen on his own gun. A note on “Prosecutorial Indiscretion.†Back in the day when I was an investigator of racketeers for government, the federal prosecutor I was assisting was deciding whether to launch a case based on his negotiations for airtime with 60 Minutes. I’m not allowed to tell you the prosecutor’s name, but I want to mention he was recently seen shouting, “Florida is Rudi country! Florida is Rudi country!†Not all crimes lead to federal bust or even public exposure. It’s up to something called “prosecutorial discretion.†Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him. Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department. Or maybe we should say, 'indiscretion.'"
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Sorry, here's the link. <a href="http://www.gregpalast.com/elliot-spitzer-gets-nailed/" target="_blank">http://www.gregpalast.com/elli ot-spitzer-gets-nailed/</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X ***There's a reason liberal posts outnumber conservative posts here by such a wide margin.*** What reason is that?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The rest of your post I'm not responding to, because, as usual, it's just a bunch of assertions which are pointless to argue against. I will state that, as usual, they are incorrect.*** This is funny.
Originally Posted By Mr X Dabob, as usual everything you wrote there is wrong, and not even worth rebutting. I could, of course, refute all your statements. But I won't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What reason is that?> Because too many liberals here attack and distort, rather than have reasonable discussions. Despite lies to the contrary, if you go back and read this thread, you'll see that it was Dabob who first claimed his opinion was "a fact".
Originally Posted By Mr X I disagree. I think that a place like a Disney site, which would consist generally of family types, mid-level income or so, with a bit of the "child at heart" vibe, is the kind of place that more liberal minded people would congregate. It's really that simple. But as far as attacking and distorting, I've seen that on both sides in spades and I know you know that. The most annoying thing about having a conversation with YOU, though, is the fact that you think you are always right and those that disagree with you must be idiots. That, plus the fact that you continue to defend your positions even when the facts change and your position becomes untenable. You don't do that by trying to prove your point, but only by using debating techniques to continually "disagree" and denigrate your opponent. It's gotten extremely boring. When you actually moved away from that a few weeks ago, I saw a glimmer of hope that real conversations could be possible. Since then though, you're back to status quo. Anyway, I agree with the others. It's not useful to respond to you as you are simply trying to shut down the conversations. As for your original point, that politicians applied political pressure on the lenders to lend more to the poor, it's a ridiculous assertion since even if it were true no company would do such a thing to the detriment of their bottom line.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The most annoying thing about having a conversation with YOU, though, is the fact that you think you are always right and those that disagree with you must be idiots.> Well that would be annoying if it were true, but it's not. I'm not always right, and I don't think those who disagree with me are idiots. The only people I have a problem with are those who distort what was said, those who are needlessly insulting, and those that think that repeating their opinion over and over is a good way to win an argument.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Because too many liberals here attack and distort, rather than have reasonable discussions. Despite lies to the contrary, if you go back and read this thread, you'll see that it was Dabob who first claimed his opinion was "a fact".> Talk about a distortion. As well as a joke. You made an assertion that you were challenged to back up. You couldn't. You fell back on the semantics of calling it an "opinion" even though you presented is as a fact and even said it had been "established." Challenged again to at least back up your opinion, you could not. 149 posts into it, you STILL have not. And here I go again, calling you to task for nonsense that you refuse to recognize as nonsense, even when others call you on it too and no one backs you up. It's all a way to derail and obfuscate, and a way to NOT discuss the topic. Notice it hasn't been discussed, even after #141 attempted to get it back on track. I don't know why I expect you to stop your nonsense at this point. I once expected more of you, but no longer. Jonvn pegged you exactly. Anyone want to discuss the actual topic?
Originally Posted By jonvn I think it's absolutely disgusting that these corporations are begging to have regulations relaxed, regulations created because 80 years ago it was shown that they were necessary, and then when through the relaxation of these regulations, they screw it up yet again, and are now begging for money. Yet, where is the money for the little people they have financially ruined? Oh, no help for them. These companies should get NO bail out money. Neither should airlines, car makers, or any other company that through its own ineptitude makes a ruin of itself. That's capitalism. That's how it works. People at these companies can go find another job someplace else.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 How do you feel about the "too big to fail" financials? i.e. the theory that Citibank or B of A are "too big to fail" because if they fail they could take the whole financial system down with them? (or at least damage it severely).
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm inclined to say let them fail. Other companies will pick up the pieces and we'll move on. Exactly what would the failure of BofA do that could trigger our entire financial system to die?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You fell back on the semantics of calling it an "opinion" even though you presented is as a fact and even said it had been "established."> Again, the person who claimed their opinion was a fact was you. <Notice it hasn't been discussed, even after #141 attempted to get it back on track.> Yes, because you continue to blame me for your distortions.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm inclined to say let them fail. Other companies will pick up the pieces and we'll move on.> That's exactly right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Again, the person who claimed their opinion was a fact was you. > And what is "it has been established that..." but saying something is a fact. But the semantics continue. And more claiming of victimhood on your part. It got tired a long time ago.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Exactly what would the failure of BofA do that could trigger our entire financial system to die?> I'm not going to claim to know. It's all pretty labyrinthine to me. But the "experts" you see on TV always say this. It's something about all the financial institutions being highly interdependent, plus anyone who has any investments with any large bank that are not FDIC secured (basically, anything other than a regular bank deposit) would also be out their money. A lot of regular people could lose their shirts overnight, is the thinking.
Originally Posted By jonvn I think that banks regularly borrow money from each other. In fact, the wife unit used to have a job where she called around various banks to transfer funds around and would have to dicker with other banks to get the best rate. Maybe it has something to do with that. Did you know that when you deposit money in a bank, it no longer is legally yours? It belongs to them. The FDIC will only cover amounts of up to $100,000 per account. Over that, and it's lost. I still would not prop up a bank. I'd force it to dissolve, and give its assets over to another company who might manage it better, but I have no idea what the actual consequences would be.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That's the thing. It seems very easy to say "let 'em fail, like any other business," but people who know much more than me say that in some cases that would be a very bad idea. My Mom is really quite knowledgeable in financial things and is excellent in investing money. Except for a couple of years teaching school before we were born, she was always a stay-at-home mom, so my family had just the one salary, and my Dad was just slightly above middle-middle class with his salary. Still, because of how she invested, they're quite comfortable now and should continue to be. She has read the WSJ every day for 30 years or more. She's the one I first heard "too big to fail" from and apparently there are some financial institutions whose ripple effect of failure would be felt throughout the economy, in a bad way that would take years to recover from. By the way, her secret to investing? Heavily in food stocks. She figures cars or computers or washing machines come and go, but people always gotta eat.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***That's capitalism. That's how it works. People at these companies can go find another job someplace else.*** The truth of the matter though, is that it's not really capitalism. Not in it's purest form, anyway. Too much regulation to call it capitalism. I'm not sure what it is, exactly. At one point in history, I do believe America was capitalist. Not any more though. The great depression is probably what changed it, actually.
