Bailout Nation: Freddie, Fannie, and more

[N Judah]

There's nothing wrong with sub prime mortgages per se as long as the people buying them up know what they're getting into. The risk is obvious and you can get insurance. Instead these mortgages were collated with better mortgages and disingenuously rated only according to the quality of the better mortgages. Even that itself would not have been so bad if the insurance hadn't fallen through.

[RedScare]

Yeah Mark, I've been back for a week.

Mark, I know Fox News has been trying to push this minority mortgage angle for awhile as the cause of this crisis. Let me be blunt. This is a worldwide credit crisis, and it is far bigger than a few thousand black people defaulting on $100,000 mortgages. To even suggest it shows an absolute misunderstanding of even the most general causes of the crisis. Please do not embarrass yourself by pushing that angle. It isn't even close.

By the way, I've been screaming about the fraud in the mortgage business, and especially in subprime. That has nothing to do with treating minorities equally and fairly. In fact, minorities were targeted a different way, and not for the better.

[Subdude]

Still not enough correction. We need to see Dow 8000-ish... and have it hover there for a while (year or two?) before we can say we've hit a bottom (in the stock market)...

And that is based on what? Why do we "need" to see Dow 8000-ish? Is there some obscure theory of economics here?

I stand agog at the number of people who feel this is all some sort of economics morality play, where we must all suffer as if in atonement for financial sins.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Yeah Mark, I've been back for a week.

Mark, I know Fox News has been trying to push this minority mortgage angle for awhile as the cause of this crisis. Let me be blunt. This is a worldwide credit crisis, and it is far bigger than a few thousand black people defaulting on $100,000 mortgages. To even suggest it shows an absolute misunderstanding of even the most general causes of the crisis. Please do not embarrass yourself by pushing that angle. It isn't even close.

By the way, I've been screaming about the fraud in the mortgage business, and especially in subprime. That has nothing to do with treating minorities equally and fairly. In fact, minorities were targeted a different way, and not for the better.

No I'm not pushing that angle, sorry it came off that way, that is just one of the many many pieces of this complex puzzle. And it's just a drop in the bucket compared to the rest. This thing is so faceted, that it's blinding to try and push it off on any one thing. The only sure thing out of all of this is the part of the victim, John Q Public - Taxpayer.....

[infinite_jim]

festina lente

[Subdude]

We're better off because we we didn't reward the behavior that caused the problem. The downside is that the people who caused the problem aren't the only ones who will be punished.

The expression is, "Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face."

[N Judah]

And that is based on what? Why do we "need" to see Dow 8000-ish? Is there some obscure theory of economics here?

I stand agog at the number of people who feel this is all some sort of economics morality play, where we must all suffer as if in atonement for financial sins.

The term "bubble" has been bandied about. The theory is that what goes up must come down.

[TheNiche]

The term "bubble" has been bandied about. The theory is that what goes up must come down.

Nope.

[RedScare]

Paul Krugman said only one stock went up yesterday...Campbell Soup Co.

[houstonmacbro]

I'm watching CNBC right now and they have all these talking heads TELLING Congress that they have to re-vote and pass this thing.

I'm convinced.

Convinced that Wall Street is WAY too powerful for its own good.

[memebag]

I stand agog at the number of people who feel this is all some sort of economics morality play, where we must all suffer as if in atonement for financial sins.

Why so agog? I'm a big, big fan of sin without atonement, but still opposed to moral hazard. Someone has to suffer the consequences of these decisions. Shouldn't it be the people and institutions that made the decisions?

[Mark F. Barnes]

Here's the gist of what's being talked about now, and it will tell you just how crooked all these bastards are, and how they play games to influence your vote and to dig in your pocket.

There was a deal struck up in the Senate, to divide the votes, to make it look like a bi-partisan act, to try and give it more of a legitimacy in the public eye, and now they are saying the Republicans reneged on the deal, after the Democrats that were ordered by Pelosi to vote Nay had already cast their votes. I picked up on it yesterday when Barney Franks said last night "The deal was to be 50/50 and the Republicans let the country down.", at first I thought that was odd. And the more it unfolds, the more you see. Pelosi knew that if the bailout bill passed, without bipartisan support, There will be nothing to whine about and the democrats will have no one to blame anymore ( Bush was on board for the bailout with Pelosi, remember?). Then the house dems and repubs negotiated a plan that would allow a bipartisan (approximately 100 dems and 100 repubs) to support it for passage and to send to the Senate. So that was the deal and Pelosi delivered her part and Boehner did not. And to be honest for the economy to all of a sudden be in recovery is never good news for Obama. And if the bailout had passed without the 50/50 deal, and the problem would NOT have been solved in the coming months , she ( and her party) would end up with egg on their faces, b/c Bush will be gone by then. And who's to blame then. They all know good and well that this doesn't fix a thing and they don't want to pass it alone, because that puts the blame directly on them. So she started the process of killing this bill when she opened her mouth and ripped the other side before the vote was cast, then the media gets into a frenzy, blame the Republicans, and basically benefit Obama. He can now step up rally his side and get the Bill passed and look like the savior. This is how bipartisanship works I guess all smoke and mirrors, nothing but a charade. The are saying they cannot pass this Bill with one Party and give it any legitimacy. Frank said "The Bill cannot and should pass as a one party Bill, too much is at stake here!" What's at stake here Barney? Your reputation and careers when this things tanks even after being put into effect, and they turn around and have to ask for another trillion in a few days. Now see they can go back and put on the pretense that they were in deep negotiations, and the price tag will go up, you can bank on it, and they can blame it on the delay in passing it, write this down that you were told this up front. Pelosi and crew felt that it was important that this legislation be passed with bipartisan support so it would certainly give them political cover when it tanked anyway; but it would also let the American people know that the bailout was necessary, thus giving it legitimacy.

Here Pelosi even says something about the "Deal" they were to have half and we were to have half. Still trying to find the interview where Frank screams, "We had a deal and they backed out!"

So if this Bill is so absolutely necessary, why not just pass it and be done with it, bi-partisan politics be damned? Talk about needing a golden parachute, that's just what this stinks of. A safety net to save their asses, just in case this 700 billion does squat, which anyone with any sense can see it's just delaying the inevitable.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Quit with the scare tactics, enough is enough. Quit the fear mongering. The most troubling element of what we're reading and hearing from all the media, is these Politicians spewing the constant references to the "Great Depression". Great Depression this, Great Depression that, OMG we're all going to die. The error is in forgetting that all real-world situations are dynamic. The Depression itself was a dynamic sequence. It wouldn't have happened if the Fed hadn't insanely tightened credit in response to the stock market crash, rather than the correct policy of easing interest rates. And it wouldn't have happened if Congress hadn't clamped down on trade through the Smoot-Hawley bill. I see the Fed dropping the interest rates in the next day or two by as much as two points, to stimulate the money flow. People act like there is no money out there when it is. I got a nice letter from Chase saying my four accounts with Wamu are safe and sound, and still covered by the FDIC. This isn't Armageddon? Yes, we're in a crisis. But is it a disaster? No. Some experts this will weed out the bad money, the false wealth, some refer to it as economic house cleaning.

Listen to this, O'Reilly on Fox Radio last night, Bill needs a Valium badly.

O'Reilly is a notorious grand stander, hey he's a talk show host, that's what he does. You don't actually watch the WWF and think it's actually real unless you been to the punch bowl too much. But every now and then reality slips out, and perhaps it did a little with Bill last night on the radio. He said it best when he said, "corruption on both sides." He hit the nail on the head.

Now this bald headed smuck Ali Velshi on CNN screaming it's a credit freeze. B frigging S. More scare tactics. No, no, no, now they are just going to require you to actually have a real down payment and actually have good credit and have legitimate paperwork to qualify for any credit. Imagine that concept, back the way it use to be.

[westguy]

This is all Pelosi's fault because she was just so mean to them.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Just threw this is for the levity and nothing else....Miller is priceless.

This is all Pelosi's fault because she was just so mean to them.

I see you missed the entire point, oh my bad, I had you confused with someone else, what was I thinking when I assumed you'd get it. I apologize Leftguy....oops Westguy....oh wait west is on the left so hey no harm no foul.

[TheNiche]

Here's the gist of what's being talked about now, and it will tell you just how crooked all these bastards are, and how they play games to influence your vote and to dig in your pocket.

Mark, are you also Grumpy19 on the MercuryNews.com forums? It doesn't really seem like it because each of you use word-for-word the same material to derive differing conclusions, but I only ask because it looks a lot like one of you is plagarizing the other...or some other source altogether.

Or perhaps your name is in fact not Mark F. Barnes, but Geoff Colvin, senior editor at large with CNNmoney.com, where other parts of your 8:43AM post were sourced from.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Mark, are you also Grumpy19 on the MercuryNews.com forums? It doesn't really seem like it because each of you use word-for-word the same material to derive differing conclusions, but I only ask because it looks a lot like one of you is plagarizing the other...or some other source altogether.

Or perhaps your name is in fact not Mark F. Barnes, but Geoff Colvin, senior editor at large with CNNmoney.com, where other parts of your 8:43AM post were sourced from.

I am not plagiarizing anything, I read constantly, haven't seen the Mercury thing yet but will keep reading it. the "Deal" (approximately 100 dems and 100 repubs) that I am talking about with in the Senate is being talked about in 100's of blogs all over the net. It's hardly anyones Word for word, not really, catch phrases maybe repeated, but I wouldn't call it plagiarism, that's a bold statement and charge. I did read the CNN article. The Headline caught my eye. Speaks the truth. I don't agree with his full view, I have my own conclusion on this entire thing.

Why don't you just say whether or not you agree with it, and then proceed with your economic masturbation drivel of words to try and paint this thing to be something it's not. Are you saying it's "Economic Armageddon"? please tells us why.

And if you are going to accuse someone of something at least learn to spell the word correctly, "plagarizing" Hmmmmmmm. Not...........

[Mark F. Barnes]

See Niche I don't stick to just one Network, because they are all slanted to fit their own agenda, Right now I have Fox on one screen, CNN on another, Bloomberg and CSPAN on the fourth. I am a news junkie, that's just me. If you weed through the crap on all channels, there are factual things you pick up. I try and get it from all sides so maybe I can get at the truth in some for or fashion.

And for the record I am a member of about 5 different forums, but I always use my real name, instead of hiding behind some handle, but hey that's just me.

[houstonmacbro]

Not sure if you folks like to view or participate in polls, but check out these economic polls running on BuzzDash.

They are very interesting:

http://www.buzzdash.com/index.php?page=category&C_id=26

[TJones]

Hmm...I'm not sure that a bunch of thieves lying about loan apps and risk provided me with an affordable mortgage. My job, my 20% down payment, and my 799 credit score may have played a bigger part. Besides, it is not the affordable mortgages that are causing the problem, but the unaffordable subprime ones.

Very true. It was very hard to throw a safety rope to a guy that had just stolen your wallet. The amazing thing to me is that the House Republicans actually had the nerve to pull the trigger and vote this thing down. I know that the voters were overwhelmingly against this bailout, but the GOP is known to be friendlier to Wall Street. I guess a lot of people are really worried about the election in 5 weeks.

So, what do they do now?

I may be repeating someone, but 20% down used to be the norm. You couldn't even get a loan in the 80's or 90's without it. It is ALL about the greed of the subprime lenders not having any oversight to keep them at bay. They came up with inventive and shady ways to make a home a dream come true for people with 450 beacons and no money down. These are the same people I have to deal with sometimes and when you tell them that they need 20% down to buy a car, they delicate flower and moan for a minute, but they have no alternative other than to drive the Nikes on their feet, so they somehow come up with the down payment, mostly because they haven't paid ANYONE in the last 4 months, so they have it lying around. Bogues, or Roaches, as we call them, seem to have this problem as a genetic trait, it runs in the family. Moral of the story.....Don't take out loans that you can't afford. If you can't come up with 20% to put down, you won't be able to come up with the monthly payment.

[Mark F. Barnes]

I may be repeating someone, but 20% down used to be the norm. You couldn't even get a loan in the 80's or 90's without it. It is ALL about the greed of the subprime lenders not having any oversight to keep them at bay. They came up with inventive and shady ways to make a home a dream come true for people with 450 beacons and no money down. These are the same people I have to deal with sometimes and when you tell them that they need 20% down to buy a car, they delicate flower and moan for a minute, but they have no alternative other than to drive the Nikes on their feet, so they somehow come up with the down payment, mostly because they haven't paid ANYONE in the last 4 months, so they have it lying around. Bogues, or Roaches, as we call them, seem to have this problem as a genetic trait, it runs in the family. Moral of the story.....Don't take out loans that you can't afford. If you can't come up with 20% to put down, you won't be able to come up with the monthly payment.

Hey are you really TJones, I read that very same thing in a post earlier, it's almost word for word...........Oh yeah I wrote it......you'll hear from my attorney.............Red?

[TheNiche]

First, some housekeeping:

Why don't you just say whether or not you agree with it, and then proceed with your economic masturbation drivel of words to try and paint this thing to be something it's not. Are you saying it's "Economic Armageddon"? please tells us why.

Because you're plagiarizing and that is unethical. It needed to be pointed out because it violates HAIF's Terms of Service and Guidelines and may also constitute a copyright violation (or violations).

Had it not been for your plagiarizing, I would not have responded to you at all because I have nothing to say in response.

And if you are going to accuse someone of something at least learn to spell the word correctly, "plagarizing" Hmmmmmmm. Not...........

It seems that you got the meat of what I was trying to say. I thereby declare my attempt at communication a resounding success.

I am not plagiarizing anything, I read constantly, haven't seen the Mercury thing yet but will keep reading it. the "Deal" (approximately 100 dems and 100 repubs) that I am talking about with in the Senate is being talked about in 100's of blogs all over the net. It's hardly anyones Word for word, not really, catch phrases maybe repeated, but I wouldn't call it plagiarism, that's a bold statement and charge. I did read the CNN article. The Headline caught my eye. Speaks the truth. I don't agree with his full view, I have my own conclusion on this entire thing.

Alright, with that out of the way, let us examine your post. No doubt, were I to go back through this thread I would find other instances, but let this be the beacon of light shining upon your dark act. Anything I've bolded is suspect.

Here's the gist of what's being talked about now, and it will tell you just how crooked all these bastards are, and how they play games to influence your vote and to dig in your pocket.

There was a deal struck up in the Senate, to divide the votes, to make it look like a bi-partisan act, to try and give it more of a legitimacy in the public eye, and now they are saying the Republicans reneged on the deal, after the Democrats that were ordered by Pelosi to vote Nay had already cast their votes. I picked up on it yesterday when Barney Franks said last night "The deal was to be 50/50 and the Republicans let the country down.", at first I thought that was odd. And the more it unfolds, the more you see. Pelosi knew that if the bailout bill passed, without bipartisan support, There will be nothing to whine about and the democrats will have no one to blame anymore ( Bush was on board for the bailout with Pelosi, remember?). [source: tharreybaaj, 3:00PM, Sept. 29th, MercuryNews.com Forums] Then the house dems and repubs negotiated a plan that would allow a bipartisan (approximately 100 dems and 100 repubs) to support it for passage and to send to the Senate. So that was the deal and Pelosi delivered her part and Boehner did not. [source: Grumpy19, 4:39PM, Sept. 29th, MercuryNews.com Forums] And to be honest for the economy to all of a sudden be in recovery is never good news for Obama. And if the bailout had passed without the 50/50 deal, and the problem would NOT have been solved in the coming months , she ( and her party) would end up with egg on their faces, b/c Bush will be gone by then. [source: tharreybaaj, 3:00PM, Sept. 29th, MercuryNews.com Forums] And who's to blame then. They all know good and well that this doesn't fix a thing and they don't want to pass it alone, because that puts the blame directly on them. So she started the process of killing this bill [source: tharreybaaj, 3:00PM, Sept. 29th, MercuryNews.com Forums]when she opened her mouth and ripped the other side before the vote was cast, then the media gets into a frenzy, blame the Republicans, and basically benefit Obama [source: tharreybaaj, 3:00PM, Sept. 29th, MercuryNews.com Forums]. He can now step up rally his side and get the Bill passed and look like the savior. This is how bipartisanship works [source: tharreybaaj, 3:00PM, Sept. 29th, MercuryNews.com Forums] I guess all smoke and mirrors, nothing but a charade. The are saying they cannot pass this Bill with one Party and give it any legitimacy. Frank said "The Bill cannot and should pass as a one party Bill, too much is at stake here!" What's at stake here Barney? Your reputation and careers when this things tanks even after being put into effect, and they turn around and have to ask for another trillion in a few days. Now see they can go back and put on the pretense that they were in deep negotiations, and the price tag will go up, you can bank on it, and they can blame it on the delay in passing it, write this down that you were told this up front. Pelosi and crew felt that it was important that this legislation be passed with bipartisan support so it would certainly give them political cover when it tanked anyway; but it would also let the American people know that the bailout was necessary, thus giving it legitimacy.

Here Pelosi even says something about the "Deal" they were to have half and we were to have half. Still trying to find the interview where Frank screams, "We had a deal and they backed out!"

So if this Bill is so absolutely necessary, why not just pass it and be done with it, bi-partisan politics be damned? Talk about needing a golden parachute, that's just what this stinks of. A safety net to save their asses, just in case this 700 billion does squat, which anyone with any sense can see it's just delaying the inevitable.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Quit with the scare tactics, enough is enough. Quit the fear mongering. The most troubling element of what we're reading and hearing from all the media, is these Politicians spewing the constant references to the "Great Depression". Great Depression this, Great Depression that, OMG we're all going to die. The error is in forgetting that all real-world situations are dynamic. The Depression itself was a dynamic sequence. It wouldn't have happened if the Fed hadn't insanely tightened credit in response to the stock market crash, rather than the correct policy of easing interest rates. And it wouldn't have happened if Congress hadn't clamped down on trade through the Smoot-Hawley bill. [source: Geoff Colvin, 10:54AM, Sept. 25th, CNN Money] I see the Fed dropping the interest rates in the next day or two by as much as two points, to stimulate the money flow. People act like there is no money out there when it is. I got a nice letter from Chase saying my four accounts with Wamu are safe and sound, and still covered by the FDIC. This isn't Armageddon? Yes, we're in a crisis. But is it a disaster? No. Some experts this will weed out the bad money, the false wealth, some refer to it as economic house cleaning.

Listen to this, O'Reilly on Fox Radio last night, Bill needs a Valium badly.

O'Reilly is a notorious grand stander, hey he's a talk show host, that's what he does. You don't actually watch the WWF and think it's actually real unless you been to the punch bowl too much. But every now and then reality slips out, and perhaps it did a little with Bill last night on the radio. He said it best when he said, "corruption on both sides." He hit the nail on the head.

Now this bald headed smuck Ali Velshi on CNN screaming it's a credit freeze. B frigging S. More scare tactics. No, no, no, now they are just going to require you to actually have a real down payment and actually have good credit and have legitimate paperwork to qualify for any credit. Imagine that concept, back the way it use to be.

You plagiarized from two different posters having a conversation! Don't kid me. This was obviously very intentional on your part.

Btw, having gone back through that another time, let me just say that you're not one to be making a big deal out of single-letter spelling errors as though that's somehow an adequate defense of your own unethical behavior.

[BryanS]

Nope.

No? Really? 1930 looks real interesting on this chart...

[Mark F. Barnes]

How do you dispute this, is this entirely spin?

[editor]

Talk about the bailout proposal, and not each other. No one on this forum has the ability to influence monetary policy.

And as a reminder to all, it's polite to link back to sources you quote from.

[BryanS]

The expression is, "Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face."

Can we really say this any more? Bernake just pumped in $630 billion, all on his own. The bailout is $700 billion, and has not been authorized yet. The bailout that was so urgent, it needed to pass this past weekend, else we were told the sky would fall. None of that happened, except for the fact that Bernake basically executed the bailout, anyway (in terms of dumping cash). Since we've/Bernake already pumped in basically what the bailout was... I don't think we need to dump another $700 billion, do we? So what are we supposed to believe now? Given Bernake's actions, the bailout needs to be cancelled.

[BryanS]

Listen to this, O'Reilly on Fox Radio last night, Bill needs a Valium badly.

He's needed valium his whole life. I find it kinda odd that so many conservatives would want to rally around a guy who used to host tabloid television show.

[editor]

He's needed valium his whole life. I find it kinda odd that so many conservatives would want to rally around a guy who used to host tabloid television show.

It's the Rush Limbaugh curse. Too many people can't tell the difference between journalists and entertainers anymore. And the 24-hour news networks are more than happy to use this to their advantage.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Not rallying around behind Bill, if you read the full post, I kinda aligned him right up there with the WWF and a punch bowl.

Why people rally behind Al Franken, he use to be on and write for SNL....

David Friggin Duke use to be the honcho for the godforsaken KKK and he actually held a seat in the Louisiana House.

Bill O'Reilly is Bill O'Reilly, he can be a bit of drama queen at times, but sometimes he does a decent job. Was he unfair with Obama in their interviews? I though it actually did Obama a lot of good.

Want to talk insanity, remember him and Geraldo?

I know we are way off topic, has nothing to do with the bail out.

[N Judah]

Nope.

LoL. Well hey there you have it.

[editor]

My favorite quote so far is from Rep. Paul Broun ® Georgia

Madam Speaker, this is a huge cowpatty with a piece of marshmallow stuck in the middle of it ... I'm not going to eat that cowpatty.