Democrats created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess then stopped reforms

[ryanXL977]

exactly right
all that happens during deregulation is the poor and public are robberd
has happened for centuries, why wouldnt it happen here?

[mathdotcom]

Painful to see such basic misunderstandings of economics

There are 4 ways to spend money:
1] Your money on yourself
2] Your money on someone else
3] Someone else's money on yourself
4] Someone else's money on someone else

Guess which is the most inefficient. What a surprise, it's #4, the definition of government.

[ms61853]

Once again, genius, it was his bill. He accidentally said the wrong word. How stupid are you? How plainly do I need to spell it out for you? I know you're slow, but c'mon... And just because you aren't in a committee doesn't mean you don't have to be knowledgable on the issues, Einstein. You still need to vote on any legislation sent to the floor. Talking to you is like talking to six year old with Alzheimer's.

It was an after the fact damage control analysis that you presented.

[MonkeyF0cker]

What do you expect from banks, whose objective is to maximize profits?

The solution was not to shield them from the potential costs of their risky decisions.
Obviously they didn't want to go bankrupt, but they feared that result a lot less knowing the government would step in.

If I offer to always pay half your gambling losses, then you won't make wise gambles.

The question becomes: Do you maximize profit by going bust? Dare I say, no? If the government pays half of my losses that means I still lost. The responsibility lies with the risk taker, not those allowing those risks to be made.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Painful to see such basic misunderstandings of economics

There are 4 ways to spend money:
1] Your money on yourself
2] Your money on someone else
3] Someone else's money on yourself
4] Someone else's money on someone else

Guess which is the most inefficient. What a surprise, it's #4, the definition of government.

How is that relevant? I am by no means advocating this bailout. My point throughout this entire thread has been that this rests squarely on the shoulders of several financial institutions and they should be made to suffer the consequences.

[MonkeyF0cker]

It was an after the fact damage control analysis that you presented.

You're not worth my time since you can't comprehend that people sometimes transpose words. Was it his bill or not, genius? Think, stupid.

[mathdotcom]

Like I said, of course they don't want to go bust. It's been 3-4 decades that they haven't gone bust. During that time they were making more money than they otherwise would have by accepting riskier loans that, until now, never came back to haunt them.

According to your logic, the size of the loss doesn't matter. Hopefully when you lose betting -1100 you feel worse than when you lose a +500 bet.

To them, the cost of bankruptcy is small. Unfortunately, for society, the cost is large. Yes, the banks don't care about what happens to taxpayer money, and they shouldn't. The business of business is business.

[mathdotcom]

My 4 points comment is just a general comment that one shouldn't expect much from government. And as a result, there should be less government.

Government intervention in the market caused the market to fail. Not the market operating by itself.

[ryanXL977]

when you take a shit on the floor, your house will smell

why are we suprised that we are where we are

when you elect incompetents and blowhards, your country is ****ed

[MonkeyF0cker]

If there were no government intervention, these loans would have been possible from day one. The bailout is the unnecessary intervention here. The banks got what they asked for - deregulation to offer subprime loans. Now those that abused that ability should pay the reaper...

[MonkeyF0cker]

Like I said, of course they don't want to go bust. It's been 3-4 decades that they haven't gone bust. During that time they were making more money than they otherwise would have by accepting riskier loans that, until now, never came back to haunt them.

According to your logic, the size of the loss doesn't matter. Hopefully when you lose betting -1100 you feel worse than when you lose a +500 bet.

To them, the cost of bankruptcy is small. Unfortunately, for society, the cost is large. Yes, the banks don't care about what happens to taxpayer money, and they shouldn't. The business of business is business.

Hate to inform you but the subprime push has not lingered for decades. And how blind do you have to be to not see that these banks were the ones advocating the subprime increases through the FM's???

[mathdotcom]

If FM had been completely privatized, it would not have engaged in such risky loan taking.

This bailout is not to save shareholders or something. I of course am sick to my stomach about it, but you can't ignore the importance of the financial system. If it collapses, then it's not just the banks that will pay. Just like it wasn't just the banks that paid during the Depression.

[MonkeyF0cker]

That is where you are wrong. These institutions are always looking for more ways to increase their bottom line. It was the banks that pushed for increased subprime lending! Read the article you posted on the subprime push again if you don't believe me. If private firms would not have gone bust, why are private firms going bust? They were certainly capable of limiting their exposure to this risk. It is called greed. No more, no less. And we can certainly go without them. Chapter 11, sell their debt on the market, and inject liquidity into the financial market with government loans for those companies that were responsible during this mess and managed their risk appropriately.

[mathdotcom]

Monkey,

All these truly private banks were linked to the not-so-private FM. That is where it all started.

[MonkeyF0cker]

The point is that it wouldn't matter if the FM's were public or private, their practices would have remained the same. I don't know how you could possibly deny that. This is no different than any other crisis that the financials have been in previously. Greed is the impetus, not the discernment of whether a company is public or private. You do understand that each of these companies is perfectly capable of managing their exposure and risk independently, correct?

[danrman]

i think its absolutely hilarious everytime somebody brings up some good hard facts that all you democrats do is say "its the bush failed policies"... it easy to see you have been brainwashed by the mainstream media when all you do is spew their talking points.. i bet none of you has read 1 word about policy and all of you just listen to the fvuckin stupid left wing news.. its so true,, "suckers born every minute".. all of you just join the party and the crowd and say the same old talking points.. sooooooooo very tired

[moneyline]

Thing is, the Dems answer everything right now by blaming Bush, even the weather. And if the Dems take the White House in 2008, they will continue to blame Bush well into 2010 and 2011 for everything they do wrong.

(here's the question ... when will they stop blaming Bush for everything and, when that happens, will they be able to deal with the one word all Dems and liberals absolutely hate -- ACCOUNTABILITY)???

-- but McCain still has a shot, as Dems are lazy bastards ... getting up to vote on Election Day seems to really cause a problem for them ... using voting machines properly is another pretty serious problem ...

[MonkeyF0cker]

Pot. Meet kettle. Did you get a chance to blame Clinton for anything today? At least Bush is still in office. Unreal, these people...

[moneyline]

Are you talking about Hillary, the lawyer who married well or Bill, the aging rockstar who is still sulking that Obama has the spotlight?

[MonkeyF0cker]

You're not even worth my time, boy wonder. Carry on before you get hurt...

[moneyline]

I just wonder how the Dems will blow this election. Gore and Kerry found ways to take defeat from the jaws of victory ... just wondering how Obama is going to blow it this time around.

All I do know is it will be entertaining ... living in Broward County in the year 2000 and using those oh-so tricky voting machines, the stupidity of Dems never ceases to amaze me

(on the bright side, speaking of getting hurt, no Dems hurt themselves trying to use the voting machines in Broward and Palm Beach ... well, no injuries, save their fragile egos)

[MonkeyF0cker]

I'm independent, genius. Tell me. Why should I care again?

[moneyline]

So, you don't have any solid stance on economic policy, the death penalty, gun control, abortion, foreign policy and the like ... because each party, despite the figureheads they choose to represent them every four years, stay remarkably consistent with the planks in the party platform ... guess, as an independent, you don't vote for the party philosophies, you vote for the individual who will implement those planks?

Gotcha ... hope the coin you flip every 4 years doesn't have two heads.

[Dazzez]

All I do know is it will be entertaining ... living in Broward County in the year 2000 and using those oh-so tricky voting machines, the stupidity of Dems never ceases to amaze me

(on the bright side, speaking of getting hurt, no Dems hurt themselves trying to use the voting machines in Broward and Palm Beach ... well, no injuries, save their fragile egos)

Making fun of the aged ... yeah that's classy.

So tell me, moneyline, you're not still expecting a McCain November victory are you?

[moneyline]

Wasn't expecting a Bush victory in 2000 after such a strong Clinton presidency ... definitely wasn't expecting one in 2004 ... were you?

And if you believe only the aged had trouble with the voting machines, you are sadly mistaken ... the uneducated had a lot of trouble as well ... and sadly for the Dems, the uneducated are one of the best sources for votes ...

[MonkeyF0cker]

So, you don't have any solid stance on economic policy, the death penalty, gun control, abortion, foreign policy and the like ... because each party, despite the figureheads they choose to represent them every four years, stay remarkably consistent with the planks in the party platform ... guess, as an independent, you don't vote for the party philosophies, you vote for the individual who will implement those planks?

Gotcha ... hope the coin you flip every 4 years doesn't have two heads.

Or maybe I do have a solid stance on each of those policies but they don't align with the hypocrisies of either party, genius. And I vote for the person with the best policies and/or direction for the issues of priority at the time of election. Shocking. I know. I'm quite certain it will be difficult to wrap your tiny, little mind around that revelation.

[moneyline]

The policies for both sides never really change, though, now do they? Do the Dems ever stop saying tax the rich, give to the poor ... do the Republicans ever say stop giving tax breaks to corporations who create new jobs ... do the Dems ever say pro-life ... the Republicans pro-choice ... do the Dems ever say put more money into the military ... do the Republicans ever say cut the military budget?

Vote for the person with the best policies? That's funny. As if the figurehead of the party will do anything that totally contradicts the regular planks of the party every four years.

Geez, you are a card.

[MonkeyF0cker]

If you think I consider abortion an issue of priority at the time of election, you're more daft than I estimated. Try items such as a financial liquidity crisis, Iraq/Afghan Wars, record deficit, oil prices and foreign dependency (alternative fuels), carbon emissions, etc. Hmm. Perhaps I should vote based on whether 100 prisoners die next year instead. That's far more meaningful. Right, moneyline?

[moneyline]

I guess your reading comprehension skills are lacking ... predictable ... I mention several issues, from foreign policy to economic policy, and you hone in on the abortion issue ...

Now, that IS daft. But, as I said earlier, predictable ...

Back to the point, if you think parties change their views on foreign policy, economic policy and the like every four years, you are a fool. The president is nothing more than a figurehead ...

(I'll take it all back as soon as you point out the last Dem president to say we should give tax cuts to all major corporation to create jobs ... or the last Republican president who said we should cut the military budget severely to fund the NEA)

[MonkeyF0cker]

You're the one that brought up abortion, genius. Not me. If you don't understand that there is a delicate balance of compromise between two opposing issues to maintain stability in every facet of American culture, then I'm afraid all logic is lost on you. When that balance has shifted, it needs correction. Simple concept, Einstein.

[moneyline]

And the Democrats are always on one side, the Republicans on the other, at least when it comes to leadership and when it comes to major issues, such as the ones I've mentioned above.

I mentioned economic policy, foreign policy and abortion and you honed in on abortion. Why did you do that, I wonder?

I do appreciate your attempt to muddle along through the use of semantics, however. Question. When was the last time you voted Republican to correct that delicate balance you so eloquently speak of?

[MonkeyF0cker]

2000

[moneyline]

What did you believe needed correction after Clinton's presidency that Bush would be able to do?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Relax gun control, decrease the size of government (haha), retain fiscal responsibility (haha), shore up and restructure Social Security and Medicare (haha), decrease taxes, and other smaller domestic issues at the time...

[moneyline]

So, you wanted Bush to bring in less money by lowering taxes while spending money restructuring two of our largest financial systems, all the while maintaining our budget surplus (now, can I hear a ha-ha)?