PDA

View Full Version : While Reading About The Financial Mess At FHA



Franco
12-01-2011, 06:47 PM
I came across this...

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Newt Gingrich praised Freddie Mac’s public-private business model in 2007, saying he would be “very cautious” about changing the way the mortgage-finance company operated.

Maybe Newt has been hanging out with Barney;-)

complete story here
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-01/freddie-mac-efficiency-could-put-man-on-mars-gingrich-once-said.html

My candidate has said for years that our government shouldn't be in the mortgage business. If home lending where left up to private banks, we wouldn't have this huge problem!

M&K's Retrievers
12-01-2011, 07:09 PM
....

My candidate has said for years that our government shouldn't be in the mortgage business. If home lending where left up to private banks, we wouldn't have this huge problem!

You candidate is correct on this issue. To bad he is lacking on other issues and popularity as well.

Franco
12-01-2011, 07:12 PM
You candidate is correct on this issue. To bad he is lacking on other issues and popularity as well.

Well, at least my candidate isn't the flavor of the month and tells the truth!;-)



Gingrich was an adviser to Freddie Mac when the company published his comments. His consulting company, the Gingrich Group, received between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in fees from the mortgage company.

Franco
12-01-2011, 07:25 PM
Don't forget that the pre-Primary and Primary Season is when the real vetting gets done.

Monthly leaders; Bachamnn, Perry, Cain and now Gingrich. You can bet the opposition is gathering inconsistencies and dirt on everyone.

Is Gingrich part of the problem or the solution?

Eight months till the nomonation and anything could happen.

BonMallari
12-01-2011, 07:34 PM
somehow I got a Ron Paul email today...now I know where are you RP followers get your talking points...calling Gingrich a "counterfeit conservative", dont understand how RP and his staff think that Newt followers are going to come over to his way of thinking

Franco
12-01-2011, 07:51 PM
somehow I got a Ron Paul email today...now I know where are you RP followers get your talking points...calling Gingrich a "counterfeit conservative", dont understand how RP and his staff think that Newt followers are going to come over to his way of thinking

Newt followers? You mean his new supporters? The same ones that were supporting Cain in November, Perry in October, Bachmann is September...

Wait till the larger sample base votes, after a few Primaries. I'm not ready to crown anyone at this point and the bigger the financial meltdown and with so many government failures, the more seriously voters will look at RP;-)

M&K's Retrievers
12-01-2011, 07:56 PM
Well, at least my candidate isn't the flavor of the month ...



Not sure what you mean by that but imagine your guy somehow winning the nomination. Then picture him in a debate with Obama.

Not a pretty picture regards,

BonMallari
12-01-2011, 08:11 PM
Newt followers? You mean his new supporters? The same ones that were supporting Cain in November, Perry in October, Bachmann is September...

Wait till the larger sample base votes, after a few Primaries. I'm not ready to crown anyone at this point and the bigger the financial meltdown and with so many government failures, the more seriously voters will look at RP;-)

No those FOLLOWERS are what I call band wagoners,they can be bought and sold and are loyal to no one and easily swayed by the media...

personally I think they will look back at a candidate like Perry or even give Huntsman a look...IMO Ron Paul is a polarizing figure, either you like him or you think he is off his rocker, just dont see people sitting on the fence with him...

Newt's candidacy is eerily reminiscent of the McCain run..like Lazarus emerging from the dead to the top of the ticket...

Franco
12-01-2011, 08:11 PM
Not sure what you mean by that but imagine your guy somehow winning the nomination. Then picture him in a debate with Obama.

Not a pretty picture regards,

As I wrote on here over a month ago, the debate has to be between Obama and Paul!

Dr RP would eat his lunch.

All of our problems lead to our financial/monetary policy and Foreign Policy. RP has the ability to attract from all segments because he speaks the truth. As we move futher towards financial armageddon, people will be forced to stop watching "Dancing With The Stars" long enough to realize we are in very deep financial meltdown. The monopoly money is running out!

Nor_Cal_Angler
12-01-2011, 08:11 PM
I came across this...

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Newt Gingrich praised Freddie Mac’s public-private business model in 2007, saying he would be “very cautious” about changing the way the mortgage-finance company operated.

Maybe Newt has been hanging out with Barney;-)

complete story here
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-01/freddie-mac-efficiency-could-put-man-on-mars-gingrich-once-said.html

My candidate has said for years that our government shouldn't be in the mortgage business. If home lending where left up to private banks, we wouldn't have this huge problem!


Well, at least my candidate isn't the flavor of the month and tells the truth!;-)



Gingrich was an adviser to Freddie Mac when the company published his comments. His consulting company, the Gingrich Group, received between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in fees from the mortgage company.

Which are you more upset with....

1. The comments in 07 which say that he thinks GSE's server a better chance of providing the most good to the largest amount of people for the Katrina affeced area of the Gulf...(you understand that GSE's are PUBLIC and PRIVATE joint ventures)

2. He has changed his position from 4 Years ago.

3. Not him personally but HIS COMPANY recieved 1.6 million in funding which isnt that much for a WHOLE COMPANY.

4. Your guy is still trailing badly....and his message is not being recieved.

You do realize that the reason RP is not underfire by the left and the left controlled media is because he does NOT pose a real threat. And to be blunt...and I hate to say it...with or without a teleprompter he would get CRUSHED by Obama in a debate, which is sad because I don't think Obama is very good at debating.

Jake

Franco
12-01-2011, 08:20 PM
Which are you more upset with....

1. The comments in 07 which say that he thinks GSE's server a better chance of providing the most good to the largest amount of people for the Katrina affeced area of the Gulf...(you understand that GSE's are PUBLIC and PRIVATE joint ventures)

2. He has changed his position from 4 Years ago.

3. Not him personally but HIS COMPANY recieved 1.6 million in funding which isnt that much for a WHOLE COMPANY.

4. Your guy is still trailing badly....and his message is not being recieved.

You do realize that the reason RP is not underfire by the left and the left controlled media is because he does NOT pose a real threat. And to be blunt...and I hate to say it...with or without a teleprompter he would get CRUSHED by Obama in a debate, which is sad because I don't think Obama is very good at debating.

Jake

Actually, Obama was so good on camera and in the debates that he won the election. His skills were so smooth, he got a nation to vote in a President with very few qualifications!.

My guy can win the debate because he will be real and just maybe, Americans are ready for real!

BonMallari
12-01-2011, 08:22 PM
As I wrote on here over a month ago, the debate has to be between Obama and Paul!

Dr RP would eat his lunch.

All of our problems lead to our financial/monetary policy and Foreign Policy. RP has the ability to attract from all segments because he speaks the truth. As we move futher towards financial armageddon, people will be forced to stop watching "Dancing With The Stars" long enough to realize we are in very deep financial meltdown. The monopoly money is running out!

Stop what you are doing and back away from the keyboard....

I dont know whether to laugh or cry over that premise

Franco
12-01-2011, 08:26 PM
Stop what you are doing and back away from the keyboard....

I dont know whether to laugh or cry over that premise

Well then, tell me where RP is wrong. Pick an issue.

BonMallari
12-01-2011, 08:44 PM
Well then, tell me where RP is wrong. Pick an issue.

I am talking about your statement that Ron Paul would beat BHO in a debate...when he cant even beat the Rep field how do you expect him to match up against BHO...RP's whole campaign is based on his premise that the country is broke and cant afford to do things, while admirable, it doesnt resonate after awhile and sounds like a broken record...eliminating the Fed Reserve is not the answer to all the problems the country faces

Franco
12-01-2011, 08:50 PM
I am talking about your statement that Ron Paul would beat BHO in a debate...when he cant even beat the Rep field how do you expect him to match up against BHO...RP's whole campaign is based on his premise that the country is broke and cant afford to do things, while admirable, it doesnt resonate after awhile and sounds like a broken record...eliminating the Fed Reserve is not the answer to all the problems the country faces


Beat the Rep Field? RP will do no worse than 2nd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampsire, the first two Primaries. Romny will win NH. So, I'd say RP is going to be off to a great start.

The fact that we are broke is extremely serious. An issue that can't be avoided in the coming debates. It doesn't resonate but Americans can only live in denial for so long before they won't be able to afford anything. Obama will blame the rich and Repubs while RP will be telling the truth.

Who else has suggested eleiminating the Fed? No one but RP!!! The Fed is the reason we are in a financial meltdown. We can't even determine the price of money!

Yes, we have other problems. RP voted against invading Iraq. He doesn't believe in paying cash tributes to countries for friendship. Doesn't think it is in our interest to be the World's Police and knows the problems created by our interventious government. RP knows that our current Foreign Policy has grown Islamic terrorism, not decresed it. Just like our drug policy has grown the drug cartels and not decresed consumption domestically.

BonMallari
12-01-2011, 09:21 PM
Beat the Rep Field? RP will do no worse than 2nd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampsire, the first two Primaries. Romny will win NH. So, I'd say RP is going to be off to a great start.

The fact that we are broke is extremely serious. An issue that can't be avoided in the coming debates. It doesn't resonate but Americans can only live in denial for so long before they won't be able to afford anything. Obama will blame the rich and Repubs while RP will be telling the truth.

Who else has suggested eleiminating the Fed? No one but RP!!! The Fed is the reason we are in a financial meltdown. We can't even determine the price of money!

Yes, we have other problems. RP voted against invading Iraq. He doesn't believe in paying cash tributes to countries for friendship. Doesn't think it is in our interest to be the World's Police and knows the problems created by our interventious government. RP knows that our current Foreign Policy has grown Islamic terrorism, not decresed it. Just like our drug policy has grown the drug cartels and not decresed consumption domestically.

where do you expect him to garner support, he is in 4th place in all the polls that finished yesterday,what other candidate's supporters are going to mysteriously get up and support RP....in order for RP to finish 2nd he would either have to leap frog Romney or Gingrich would have to falter badly..and that scenario is without Cain in the race, just dont see it happening....and wishful thinking on your part wont make it come true

Franco
12-01-2011, 09:39 PM
where do you expect him to garner support, he is in 4th place in all the polls that finished yesterday,what other candidate's supporters are going to mysteriously get up and support RP....in order for RP to finish 2nd he would either have to leap frog Romney or Gingrich would have to falter badly..and that scenario is without Cain in the race, just dont see it happening....and wishful thinking on your part wont make it come true

Which poll are you talking about? An Iowa poll? New Hampshire poll? National poll?

First primary is in a little over a month. Look how much the polls have changed in the last month. Will Gingrich hold up another month? My candidate has just as good a chance as anyone in the race!

I find it amazing that no one can articulate where RP is wrong! People attack is age but no one has put up an arguement as to where he is wrong or corrupt. I understand differences of opinion but tell me where he is not fundamentally accurate.

M&K's Retrievers
12-01-2011, 09:53 PM
Which poll are you talking about? An Iowa poll? New Hampshire poll? National poll?

First primary is in a little over a month. Look how much the polls have changed in the last month. Will Gingrich hold up another month? My candidate has just as good a chance as anyone in the race!

I find it amazing that no one can articulate where RP is wrong! People attack is age but no one has put up an arguement as to where he is wrong or corrupt. I understand diffences of opinion but tell me where he is not fundamentally accurate.

Yesterday I posted a recipe for duck gumbo on the main forum. Crow can easily be substituted for duck. It tastes like Fido's arse but it's as good a recipe for crow I've found. Trust me. I know. You might should bookmark it.

mjh345
12-01-2011, 10:02 PM
where do you expect him to garner support, he is in 4th place in all the polls that finished yesterday,what other candidate's supporters are going to mysteriously get up and support RP....in order for RP to finish 2nd he would either have to leap frog Romney or Gingrich would have to falter badly..and that scenario is without Cain in the race, just dont see it happening....and wishful thinking on your part wont make it come true

By your reasoning we should have either Hillary or Rudy as our POTUS

Franco
12-01-2011, 10:03 PM
Yesterday I posted a recipe for duck gumbo on the main forum. Crow can easily be substituted for duck. It tastes like Fido's arse but it's as good a recipe for crow I've found. Trust me. I know. You might should bookmark it.

You just made my point, you can't nor can Bon tell us where RP is fundamentally wrong!

In fact, in your first post on this thread, you agreed with RP;-)

Marvin S
12-01-2011, 10:04 PM
Yesterday I posted a recipe for duck gumbo on the main forum. Crow can easily be substituted for duck. It tastes like Fido's arse but it's as good a recipe for crow I've found. Trust me. I know. You might should bookmark it.

:) :-P :) :-P :) ...........!

JDogger
12-01-2011, 10:26 PM
I thought the fantasy league was another thread?

Politics, while bearing an eerie similarity to football, does not always translate.

My guy, your guy, my party, your party...us vs them...may not be the best way.

What we're most likely faced with in 2012, are two imperfect candidates from whom we must choose.

Woe is us. JD

PS on a side note, visiting Sportsman's, 5.56 ammo seems to be well stocked. I still have my guns, don't you? Gas was $2.78. Then I went to Texas Roadhouse for dinner. Every table was full. Costco, same thing. If there is a recession going on, I don't see it.

BonMallari
12-01-2011, 10:27 PM
You just made my point, you can't nor can Bon tell us where RP is fundamentally wrong!

In fact, in your first post on this thread, you agreed with RP;-)

Eliminating the Fed Reserve is that the end all do all to our country's fianncial problems

BonMallari
12-01-2011, 10:29 PM
By your reasoning we should have either Hillary or Rudy as our POTUS

Huh...dont follow you on that one Marc

mjh345
12-01-2011, 10:30 PM
You just made my point, you can't nor can Bon tell us where RP is fundamentally wrong!

In fact, in your first post on this thread, you agreed with RP;-)

Franco, you have hit on a fundamental problem with our current state of politics.
Nobody thinks for themselves anymore. They latch onto talking points spewed ad nauseum by Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, et. al. and repeat them as fact.

Rather than address any of RP's fundamental arguments they spew insults about his looks or style. Its all about the SIZZLE and not the STEAK. Sadly the only way to get the SIZZLE is from slick ads and promotions. This is all bought with money from special interests that make one beholden to them. This results in elected officials going to the highest bidder.

As far as where RP may pick up support, it could come from backlash against the revelations of the Feds good ole boy dealings with the big banks. Thats assuming the voters actually wake up and look at the Wizard pulling the strings behind the curtain
7.7 TRILLION in free money given to the banks!!!!!!!!! Whatever the banks are paying their lobbyists, they are getting plenty of BANG for their BUCK.
You have got to be FU****G kidding me!!!!!

Another indictment on our current political graft is that it took years for RP to even get an audit of the Fed.
Audits are supposed to be common practice as a way of showing what is going on, and avoiding corruption; particularily in something like the Fed

The system is corrupt to the core. We need to stick an enema tube in the orifice known as Washington DC and blow all the sewage out of there

mjh345
12-01-2011, 10:34 PM
Huh...dont follow you on that one Marc
Prior to the first Primary in 2008 neither John McCain nor Barrack Obama were anywhere close to leading the pack.

They somehow managed to make up considerable ground once things actually started counting

Franco
12-01-2011, 10:54 PM
Franco, you have hit on a fundamental problem with our current state of politics.
Nobody thinks for themselves anymore. They latch onto talking points spewed ad nauseum by Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, et. al. and repeat them as fact.

Rather than address any of RP's fundamental arguments they spew insults about his looks or style. Its all about the SIZZLE and not the STEAK. Sadly the only way to get the SIZZLE is from slick ads and promotions. This is all bought with money from special interests that make one beholden to them. This results in elected officials going to the highest bidder.

As far as where RP may pick up support, it could come from backlash against the revelations of the Feds good ole boy dealings with the big banks. Thats assuming the voters actually wake up and look at the Wizard pulling the strings behind the curtain
7.7 TRILLION in free money given to the banks!!!!!!!!! Whatever the banks are paying their lobbyists, they are getting plenty of BANG for their BUCK.
You have got to be FU****G kidding me!!!!!

Another indictment on our current political graft is that it took years for RP to even get an audit of the Fed.
Audits are supposed to be common practice as a way of showing what is going on, and avoiding corruption; particularily in something like the Fed

The system is corrupt to the core. We need to stick an enema tube in the orifice known as Washington DC and blow all the sewage out of there

IMHO, the best post on POTUS today!

Franco
12-01-2011, 10:59 PM
Eliminating the Fed Reserve is that the end all do all to our country's fianncial problems

No, it's not the end all. Just a great start!

AS MJH43 so elloquently stated, we need to shove a big enama tube up Washington DC's ass.

BonMallari
12-01-2011, 11:11 PM
No, it's not the end all. Just a great start!

AS MJH43 so elloquently stated, we need to shove a big enama tube up Washington DC's ass.

Now do you think the banking giants like Goldman Sachs are going to sit by and let any one person eliminate the Fed overnite...Heck Congress isnt even gonna allow it, if it was THE answer then why wasnt legislation already enacted to do so, and if RP already submitted some why doesnt it have anyone elses support....

you and mjh might want to perform an enema on the Wash DC crowd, but that is impractical and unrealistic...what is realistic is voting some of the clowns out of office that helped put us in this predicament

Franco
12-01-2011, 11:21 PM
Now do you think the banking giants like Goldman Sachs are going to sit by and let any one person eliminate the Fed overnite...Heck Congress isnt even gonna allow it, if it was THE answer then why wasnt legislation already enacted to do so, and if RP already submitted some why doesnt it have anyone elses support....

you and mjh might want to perform an enema on the Wash DC crowd, but that is impractical and unrealistic...what is realistic is voting some of the clowns out of office that helped put us in this predicament

And then what? What's their plan?

Big Banks/Wall St's greatest fear is RP. The crooks would be out of work. THey wouldn't be allowed to write the rules so that they can steal legally.
If RP were to be elected, it would be because of a total voter revolution against the status quo.

BonMallari
12-01-2011, 11:28 PM
Franco, you have hit on a fundamental problem with our current state of politics.
Nobody thinks for themselves anymore. They latch onto talking points spewed ad nauseum by Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, et. al. and repeat them as fact.

Rather than address any of RP's fundamental arguments they spew insults about his looks or style. Its all about the SIZZLE and not the STEAK. Sadly the only way to get the SIZZLE is from slick ads and promotions. This is all bought with money from special interests that make one beholden to them. This results in elected officials going to the highest bidder.

As far as where RP may pick up support, it could come from backlash against the revelations of the Feds good ole boy dealings with the big banks. Thats assuming the voters actually wake up and look at the Wizard pulling the strings behind the curtain
7.7 TRILLION in free money given to the banks!!!!!!!!! Whatever the banks are paying their lobbyists, they are getting plenty of BANG for their BUCK.
You have got to be FU****G kidding me!!!!!

Another indictment on our current political graft is that it took years for RP to even get an audit of the Fed.
Audits are supposed to be common practice as a way of showing what is going on, and avoiding corruption; particularily in something like the Fed

The system is corrupt to the core. We need to stick an enema tube in the orifice known as Washington DC and blow all the sewage out of there

Mjh : you may be correct but the RP faithful are just as guilty of spewing and regurgitating the same talking points that the Congressman champions, I saw it first hand today when I got the RP email outlining his talking points and his saying that Newt is a "counterfeit conservative"

the RP supporters I work with are just like Franco, except they are live and in person, they are no more or less "brainwashed" than those of us who get our opinions elsewhere...they believe what they want to believe, doesnt mean they are right, and it doesnt mean the non believers are wrong...we just see things from a different perspective

it also doesnt mean that either of us are any more or any less conservative than the other, and it also doesnt make either side any more or any less patriotic

Franco
12-01-2011, 11:35 PM
Mjh : you may be correct but the RP faithful are just as guilty of spewing and regurgitating the same talking points that the Congressman champions, I saw it first hand today when I got the RP email outlining his talking points and his saying that Newt is a "counterfeit conservative"

the RP supporters I work with are just like Franco, except they are live and in person, they are no more or less "brainwashed" than those of us who get our opinions elsewhere...they believe what they want to believe, doesnt mean they are right, and it doesnt mean the non believers are wrong...we just see things from a different perspective

it also doesnt mean that either of us are any more or any less conservative than the other, and it also doesnt make either side any more or any less patriotic

Gee, I wonder why that email made that comment. Actions always speak louder than words. ;-)

caryalsobrook
12-02-2011, 05:59 AM
Well then, tell me where RP is wrong. Pick an issue.
I already did that in the thread "Iowa straw poll".

He says "Get rid of the FED". Well what is to replace it? Go back to the gold standard? A shiney mettel which we have more of than we have a use for other than the emotional feeling that it is a store of value. How will we transfer funds just from one bank to the other, let alone from a bank in one country to another. How are debits and credits to be cleared? The FED performs MANY functions other than monetary policy and yes we conservatives totally dissagree wih its monetary policy and yes we are afraid that its monetary policy will bring down the whole system. The question is "If you get rid of the FED then what will you replace it with?" How will the other functions of the FED be performed or do you just expect for "THE BANKS TO WORK IT OUT?" Maybe we don't need money(something used as a medium of exchange but HAS NO INTRINSIC VALLUE". We can just carry around gold and use it as a medium of exchange. the banks can ship it when one wants to transfer assets from one tot the other. Might take a few months but so be it. The point I make is that the FED has some redeeming value and either you must perform those functions in some other way or find a way to keep the FED and correct its faults. RP's position is to eliminate the FED but gives no answer as how to deal with all the consequences.

Both RP and you say "Let the private banks make the home loans". Well until the 1980's Savings and Loans made a significant percentage of home loans. We found out that private institutions can't make long term loans financed by short term borrowing. In the end the taxpayors bailed out the depositors. You look to commercial banks to perform the function of home loans? Well they are not called 'commercial banks" just for giggles. AND THEY ARE NOT GIONG TO MAKE LONG TERM LOANS FINANCED WITH SHORT TERM NOTES! Their loans are either less than 5 years of 5 year baloon loans which may either be fixed or variable rate.

You railed that credit default swaps lacked proper regulation(more gov. control?) and I asked you had you even heard of CDS's before the housing collapse anddid you think you would have ever heard of them had there not been a housing collapse. No answer.

Don't get me wrong. I like RP's ideas but unfortunately HE HAS NO SOLUTIONS TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS IDEAS. We tried the gold standard and that didn't work and in my opinion can't work. We had private banks make long term loans of as much as 30 years and tried to finance them with short term notes and that didn't work. So what private institution would even make home loans today? I suspect none. Would private institutions be created to make home loans, possibly but I guarantee you none would make long term fixed rate loans, that is for sure.

You asked for RP issues that I disagree. My response is very few(gold standard for one). I do have a problem with his lack of solution to the consequences ofhis positions.

Hew
12-02-2011, 06:46 AM
Franco, you have hit on a fundamental problem with our current state of politics.
Nobody thinks for themselves anymore. They latch onto talking points spewed ad nauseum by Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, et. al. and repeat them as fact.
Exactly. Because you're so smart and anybody who doesn't agree with you must be stupid.

Franco
12-02-2011, 06:58 AM
My responces in red.


I already did that in the thread "Iowa straw poll".

He says "Get rid of the FED". Well what is to replace it? Go back to the gold standard? A shiney mettel which we have more of than we have a use for other than the emotional feeling that it is a store of value. How will we transfer funds just from one bank to the other, let alone from a bank in one country to another. How are debits and credits to be cleared? The FED performs MANY functions other than monetary policy and yes we conservatives totally dissagree wih its monetary policy and yes we are afraid that its monetary policy will bring down the whole system. The question is "If you get rid of the FED then what will you replace it with?" How will the other functions of the FED be performed or do you just expect for "THE BANKS TO WORK IT OUT?" Maybe we don't need money(something used as a medium of exchange but HAS NO INTRINSIC VALLUE". We can just carry around gold and use it as a medium of exchange. the banks can ship it when one wants to transfer assets from one tot the other. Might take a few months but so be it. The point I make is that the FED has some redeeming value and either you must perform those functions in some other way or find a way to keep the FED and correct its faults. RP's position is to eliminate the FED but gives no answer as how to deal with all the consequences.

As RP has suggested, the Fed needs to be gradually eliminated. The functions you mentioned can be done through a Clearing Bank. What we don't need is the Fed bailout Wall ST and printing 16 trillion to lend at zero interest to help foreign and domestic banks. Their attempt at trying to determine the cost of money has failed.

Both RP and you say "Let the private banks make the home loans". Well until the 1980's Savings and Loans made a significant percentage of home loans. We found out that private institutions can't make long term loans financed by short term borrowing. In the end the taxpayors bailed out the depositors. You look to commercial banks to perform the function of home loans? Well they are not called 'commercial banks" just for giggles. AND THEY ARE NOT GIONG TO MAKE LONG TERM LOANS FINANCED WITH SHORT TERM NOTES! Their loans are either less than 5 years of 5 year baloon loans which may either be fixed or variable rate.

What about Community Banks doing it they way they use to. Lending money from what they have on deposit? First home I purchased in the 70's, I paid 9% interest. The Fed keeping interst rates artificially low is what fueled the mortgage crisis.

You railed that credit default swaps lacked proper regulation(more gov. control?) and I asked you had you even heard of CDS's before the housing collapse anddid you think you would have ever heard of them had there not been a housing collapse. No answer.

No. never heard of CDS until I started digging into what happened. Gramm gave them the unregulated tool to make trillions in commissions and bonuses. All at tax payers expense.

Don't get me wrong. I like RP's ideas but unfortunately HE HAS NO SOLUTIONS TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS IDEAS. We tried the gold standard and that didn't work and in my opinion can't work. We had private banks make long term loans of as much as 30 years and tried to finance them with short term notes and that didn't work. So what private institution would even make home loans today? I suspect none. Would private institutions be created to make home loans, possibly but I guarantee you none would make long term fixed rate loans, that is for sure.

I just built a new home and my community banks wants to lend me money for it. It is what small banks are for in my opinion. If the government were to get out of the mortgage business, these banks would pick up the slack because there would be financial incentitves to do so.
You asked for RP issues that I disagree. My response is very few(gold standard for one). I do have a problem with his lack of solution to the consequences ofhis positions.

Visit his website. He answers many of your questions there. I for one think it time we stop playing with funny money!

Gerry Clinchy
12-02-2011, 07:03 AM
So what private institution would even make home loans today? I suspect none. Would private institutions be created to make home loans, possibly but I guarantee you none would make long term fixed rate loans, that is for sure.


And this is exactly why so many more loans today are FHA loans v. conventional. The local banks don't want to make 30-yr loans at record-low interest rates that have nowhere to go but up.

Franco
12-02-2011, 07:08 AM
Exactly. Because you're so smart and anybody who doesn't agree with you must be stupid.


Fox News is just as embarassing as MSNBC. Both spew misinformation and a slap in the face to real journalism.

Franco
12-02-2011, 07:14 AM
And this is exactly why so many more loans today are FHA loans v. conventional. The local banks don't want to make 30-yr loans at record-low interest rates that have nowhere to go but up.

And if interest rates weren't kept artificially low, these conventionl banks would have more money on deposit to lend.

Gerry Clinchy
12-02-2011, 07:36 AM
And if interest rates weren't kept artificially low, these conventionl banks would have more money on deposit to lend.

Seems that they have the money, but they are smart enough not to lend it at long-term low rates; when they can lend it at short-term higher rates.

That would make sense in any scenario ... whether it was the Fed or the "market" dictating the interest rates.

road kill
12-02-2011, 08:07 AM
Originally Posted by mjh345
Franco, you have hit on a fundamental problem with our current state of politics.
Nobody thinks for themselves anymore. They latch onto talking points spewed ad nauseum by Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, et. al. and repeat them as fact.


Exactly. Because you're so smart and anybody who doesn't agree with you must be stupid.

Pretty sad, ain't it???


It makes me want to vomit when I see the big labor, big government, big entitlement crowd cry, whine, bitch and squeal like crack addicts in withdrawal when anyone stands up to them and says NO.

Hysterical to watch adults with no conscience and no shame paying homage at the alter of Obama with their "fellow travelers.";-)

Tell me this guy at 1:28 on doesn't look like a crack addict losing his crack (he is addicted to his freebies);

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIHkpMtJ0dI

Let's play tit for tat shall we?
Show me a clip of a tea party member acting like this FOOL!!
BTW--he is a teacher in the Grafton school district in WI.:rolleyes:




RK

Franco
12-02-2011, 08:20 AM
Seems that they have the money, but they are smart enough not to lend it at long-term low rates; when they can lend it at short-term higher rates.

That would make sense in any scenario ... whether it was the Fed or the "market" dictating the interest rates.

I remember in the mid 80's when many of our community banks went belly up because they were leanding short term/higher interest to many of the oil field businesses. When the oil field slowed down back then, they lost thier shirts. Mortgage lending on the other hand, when done with a reasonable downpayment to borrowers with good credit is a safe play. The community banks that survived stayed away from the higher speculative lending and played it much closer to the vest with home loans.

caryalsobrook
12-02-2011, 08:21 AM
My responces in red.


I already did that in the thread "Iowa straw poll".

He says "Get rid of the FED". Well what is to replace it? Go back to the gold standard? A shiney mettel which we have more of than we have a use for other than the emotional feeling that it is a store of value. How will we transfer funds just from one bank to the other, let alone from a bank in one country to another. How are debits and credits to be cleared? The FED performs MANY functions other than monetary policy and yes we conservatives totally dissagree wih its monetary policy and yes we are afraid that its monetary policy will bring down the whole system. The question is "If you get rid of the FED then what will you replace it with?" How will the other functions of the FED be performed or do you just expect for "THE BANKS TO WORK IT OUT?" Maybe we don't need money(something used as a medium of exchange but HAS NO INTRINSIC VALLUE". We can just carry around gold and use it as a medium of exchange. the banks can ship it when one wants to transfer assets from one tot the other. Might take a few months but so be it. The point I make is that the FED has some redeeming value and either you must perform those functions in some other way or find a way to keep the FED and correct its faults. RP's position is to eliminate the FED but gives no answer as how to deal with all the consequences.

As RP has suggested, the Fed needs to be gradually eliminated. The functions you mentioned can be done through a Clearing Bank. What we don't need is the Fed bailout Wall ST and printing 16 trillion to lend at zero interest to help foreign and domestic banks. Their attempt at trying to determine the cost of money has failed.

Both RP and you say "Let the private banks make the home loans". Well until the 1980's Savings and Loans made a significant percentage of home loans. We found out that private institutions can't make long term loans financed by short term borrowing. In the end the taxpayors bailed out the depositors. You look to commercial banks to perform the function of home loans? Well they are not called 'commercial banks" just for giggles. AND THEY ARE NOT GIONG TO MAKE LONG TERM LOANS FINANCED WITH SHORT TERM NOTES! Their loans are either less than 5 years of 5 year baloon loans which may either be fixed or variable rate.

What about Community Banks doing it they way they use to. Lending money from what they have on deposit? First home I purchased in the 70's, I paid 9% interest. The Fed keeping interst rates artificially low is what fueled the mortgage crisis.

You railed that credit default swaps lacked proper regulation(more gov. control?) and I asked you had you even heard of CDS's before the housing collapse anddid you think you would have ever heard of them had there not been a housing collapse. No answer.

No. never heard of CDS until I started digging into what happened. Gramm gave them the unregulated tool to make trillions in commissions and bonuses. All at tax payers expense.

Don't get me wrong. I like RP's ideas but unfortunately HE HAS NO SOLUTIONS TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS IDEAS. We tried the gold standard and that didn't work and in my opinion can't work. We had private banks make long term loans of as much as 30 years and tried to finance them with short term notes and that didn't work. So what private institution would even make home loans today? I suspect none. Would private institutions be created to make home loans, possibly but I guarantee you none would make long term fixed rate loans, that is for sure.

I just built a new home and my community banks wants to lend me money for it. It is what small banks are for in my opinion. If the government were to get out of the mortgage business, these banks would pick up the slack because there would be financial incentitves to do so.
You asked for RP issues that I disagree. My response is very few(gold standard for one). I do have a problem with his lack of solution to the consequences ofhis positions.

Visit his website. He answers many of your questions there. I for one think it time we stop playing with funny money!
You said he wanted to GRADUALLY eliminate the FED but in a debate he said he wanted to eliminate the FED. Never the less, the fact is the FED was created to BE A CLEARING HOUSE. So if he says that then he just wants to do over what has already been done. If you read Milton Friedman, he advocated a steadily growing money supply consistant with a healthy growing economy. Monetry policy should not be used to stimulate the economy during recession nor should it be used to stem inflation. Attempts to do these things invariably wrong and done at the wrong time. You failed to mention his support of returning to the gold standard, an totally rediculous and absurd solution which did not and will not work.

The Community bank or S&L that made you your home loan in the 70's does not exist today. THEY WENT BROKE! The tax payers bailed out the depositors.

It is amazing that you think that CDS's were the problem. To be sure they made it worse. CDS's mae it worse because almost all of us were to domb to realize that the increase in the price of housing could not continue at a rate such that nobody would eventually be able to afford a house. As a result, the risk of CDS's was severely underestimated. The very few that saw this bet against the housing market and they made money. the rest of us lost. Do you really believe that regulators will in the future or could have prevented what happened in the CDS market? You have got to be kidding.

Let me give you an example of regulators. I own stock in a small home town bank where I grew up. For years the regulators have criticized it due the the high percntage of loans made to farmers for farm operating expenses. The stock is not traded(only less that 200 stockholders). In 2004 the stock was valuated by an investment company at $129.00/share. Dividends had been 1% of the value of the stock. In 2010, the stock was valued at $310.00/share and they paid a dividend of 7%. Do you really think they would have done better had they listened to the regulators, made more construction and installment loans by improving their rating by following the regulators criticisms??

We should learn from our mistakes. The cost of housing rose at such a rate that the rise could not possibly be sustained. It rose due to the policy of the gov. regulationg home loans. I bought a farm 4 years ago for $1800.00/acre. Today it would sell at over $4000.00/acre in a day if I put it on the market. You might think that that would make me feel great that I made such an investment. What it means is that there is no way that I would buy even another acre because I have learned THAT IT CAN'T CONTINUE. If it did then food would be so high that no one could afford food. My father used to always say buy cheap and sell high. The problem is that now the gov. is determining what is cheap and what is high and not the market.

RP has it right that the gov. is the problem. Gov. policy in regards to housing did and is still causing the housing problem, not CDS's. Gov. policy and regulation has and is still causing the finantial problems.

Monetary policy is in my opinion a function of the gov. We have tried the gold standard and that didn't work. We have tried Keynesian policy and that doesn't work. Personally I like Milton Friedman's idea of a steadily growing money supply consistant with a steadily growing economy, with no intervention due to short term economic conditions as we do today. It has never been tried and it could work.

Franco
12-02-2011, 08:31 AM
[quote=Franco;887544]My responces in red.


You said he wanted to GRADUALLY eliminate the FED but in a debate he said he wanted to eliminate the FED. Never the less, the fact is the FED was created to BE A CLEARING HOUSE. So if he says that then he just wants to do over what has already been done. If you read Milton Friedman, he advocated a steadily growing money supply consistant with a healthy growing economy. Monetry policy should not be used to stimulate the economy during recession nor should it be used to stem inflation. Attempts to do these things invariably wrong and done at the wrong time. You failed to mention his support of returning to the gold standard, an totally rediculous and absurd solution which did not and will not work.

The Community bank or S&L that made you your home loan in the 70's does not exist today. THEY WENT BROKE! The tax payers bailed out the depositors.

It is amazing that you think that CDS's were the problem. To be sure they made it worse. CDS's mae it worse because almost all of us were to domb to realize that the increase in the price of housing could not continue at a rate such that nobody would eventually be able to afford a house. As a result, the risk of CDS's was severely underestimated. The very few that saw this bet against the housing market and they made money. the rest of us lost. Do you really believe that regulators will in the future or could have prevented what happened in the CDS market? You have got to be kidding.

Let me give you an example of regulators. I own stock in a small home town bank where I grew up. For years the regulators have criticized it due the the high percntage of loans made to farmers for farm operating expenses. The stock is not traded(only less that 200 stockholders). In 2004 the stock was valuated by an investment company at $129.00/share. Dividends had been 1% of the value of the stock. In 2010, the stock was valued at $310.00/share and they paid a dividend of 7%. Do you really think they would have done better had they listened to the regulators, made more construction and installment loans by improving their rating by following the regulators criticisms??

We should learn from our mistakes. The cost of housing rose at such a rate that the rise could not possibly be sustained. It rose due to the policy of the gov. regulationg home loans. I bought a farm 4 years ago for $1800.00/acre. Today it would sell at over $4000.00/acre in a day if I put it on the market. You might think that that would make me feel great that I made such an investment. What it means is that there is no way that I would buy even another acre because I have learned THAT IT CAN'T CONTINUE. If it did then food would be so high that no one could afford food. My father used to always say buy cheap and sell high. The problem is that now the gov. is determining what is cheap and what is high and not the market.

RP has it right that the gov. is the problem. Gov. policy in regards to housing did and is still causing the housing problem, not CDS's. Gov. policy and regulation has and is still causing the finantial problems.

Monetary policy is in my opinion a function of the gov. We have tried the gold standard and that didn't work. We have tried Keynesian policy and that doesn't work. Personally I like Milton Friedman's idea of a steadily growing money supply consistant with a steadily growing economy, with no intervention due to short term economic conditions as we do today. It has never been tried and it could work.

I think we are agreeing on some points.

In the debate before last, RP mentioned a gradual eleimination of the Fed and that the Fed had zero business creating our monetary policy. That should be a function of Congress and the Treasury. Not bankers with ties to Foreign Banks that place the security of the banks over the security of the people.

In regards to the Gold Standard; do you really think we are better off today having done away with it? I don't think so. Just imagine how much more a dollar would buy you if it was backed by gold.

Again, CDS were the isntrument that allowed for Wall St to leagally steal from tax payers. Doesn't matter what Gramm's intentions were. The result is in the pudding, so to speak.

The Free Market isn't so free in the USA.

caryalsobrook
12-02-2011, 09:17 AM
[quote=caryalsobrook;887586]

I think we are agreeing on some points.

In the debate before last, RP mentioned a gradual eleimination of the Fed and that the Fed had zero business creating our monetary policy. That should be a function of Congress and the Treasury. Not bankers with ties to Foreign Banks that place the security of the banks over the security of the people.

In regards to the Gold Standard; do you really think we are better off today having done away with it? I don't think so. Just imagine how much more a dollar would buy you if it was backed by gold.

Again, CDS were the isntrument that allowed for Wall St to leagally steal from tax payers. Doesn't matter what Gramm's intentions were. The result is in the pudding, so to speak.

The Free Market isn't so free in the USA.

Certainly we agree on many points(probably on over 95% of the problems)! We probably would agree on 75% of solutions.

In regards to the FED, limiting the FED to a rate of growth of the money supply consistant with a healthy growing economy as Milton Friedman advocated would eliminate those objections to the FED that you have. You asked if we are better of abandoning the gold standard. The answer is absolutely yes. We knew that it did not work. We now know that Keynesian monetary policy doesn't work(too bad those that advocate it can't see it). The gold standard does not allow for a growing economy and the Keynesians invariably make the wrong decision at the wrong time in managing the money supply. Friedman allows the money supply grow consistant with a healthy growing economy which the gold standard does not. Friedman does now allow keynesians to manipulate the money supply to control either a recession or inflation because they invariably get it wrong. Is that not what we have now?

Your idea of regulating CDS's is quite a paradox to me. Regulators only create regulations based on gov. policy. Do you think the regulators were telling Fanny and Freddy they should not be making the housing loans that got us into trouble in the first place? Had the gov. not controlled the housing market, the risk of the CDS's would not have underestimated and the huge loss involved would not have happeded. THE MARKET WOULD HAVE SEEN TO THAT! Those that were smart enough to see that the simple fact was that iIT COULD NOT CONTINUE made money. I built a house in 2004. Had I been real smart, I could have sold it the minute I built it at a good profit and bought some of those CDS's. I was just too dumb to see that. I really can't hold it against those that realized what I did not. Yes it was bad but in my opinion, regulators would have made it worse. Makes me feel as I am more fiscally conservative than either you or RP:)

Franco
12-02-2011, 11:22 AM
Laura Ingraham on Ron Paul's comment regarding Newt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7fBsPWQ0c

Buzz
12-02-2011, 11:33 AM
Your idea of regulating CDS's is quite a paradox to me. Regulators only create regulations based on gov. policy. Do you think the regulators were telling Fanny and Freddy they should not be making the housing loans that got us into trouble in the first place? Had the gov. not controlled the housing market, the risk of the CDS's would not have underestimated and the huge loss involved would not have happeded. THE MARKET WOULD HAVE SEEN TO THAT! Those that were smart enough to see that the simple fact was that iIT COULD NOT CONTINUE made money. I built a house in 2004. Had I been real smart, I could have sold it the minute I built it at a good profit and bought some of those CDS's. I was just too dumb to see that. I really can't hold it against those that realized what I did not. Yes it was bad but in my opinion, regulators would have made it worse. Makes me feel as I am more fiscally conservative than either you or RP:)

One problem is, no one has any idea what CDS's have been sold and against what. And banks wrote CDS's against steaming piles of do-do that has AAA ratings and the premiums were set according to that level of risk. I'm not sure I agree that someone should be able to buy a CDS on an instrument or investment that they have no stake in. Should your neighbor be able to buy insurance against your life or your home? That strikes me as gambling more than investing, it provides nothing to productivity. I hear arguments that CDS's provide liquidity. Well if they didn't have that liquidity, maybe they wouldn't have had the cash to make more bad loans. I have no problem with someone buying insurance to limit risk, but they should have something at risk in the first place, and it should all happen in broad daylight.

Franco
12-02-2011, 11:38 AM
[quote=caryalsobrook;887618]

One problem is, no one has any idea what CDS's have been sold and against what. And banks wrote CDS's against steaming piles of do-do that has AAA ratings and the premiums were set according to that level of risk. I'm not sure I agree that someone should be able to buy a CDS on an instrument or investment that they have no stake in. Should your neighbor be able to buy insurance against your life or your home? That strikes me as gambling more than investing, it provides nothing to productivity. I hear arguments that CDS's provide liquidity. Well if they didn't have that liquidity, maybe they wouldn't have had the cash to make more bad loans. I have no problem with someone buying insurance to limit risk, but they should have something at risk in the first place, and it should all happen in broad daylight.

I agree Buzz.

No differnet than Wall St telling clients to buy a certain stock all the while they are personally shorting it.

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/378696_2584386485445_1127971822_32865359_150214577 4_n.jpg

caryalsobrook
12-02-2011, 12:26 PM
One problem is, no one has any idea what CDS's have been sold and against what. And banks wrote CDS's against steaming piles of do-do that has AAA ratings and the premiums were set according to that level of risk. I'm not sure I agree that someone should be able to buy a CDS on an instrument or investment that they have no stake in. Should your neighbor be able to buy insurance against your life or your home? That strikes me as gambling more than investing, it provides nothing to productivity. I hear arguments that CDS's provide liquidity. Well if they didn't have that liquidity, maybe they wouldn't have had the cash to make more bad loans. I have no problem with someone buying insurance to limit risk, but they should have something at risk in the first place, and it should all happen in broad daylight.

Oh the answer is SO SIMPLE! Corn, cotton, soybeans and more commodities than I can mention are sold by those who don't own or have them and never intend to own them. They are also bought when those that buy them never need them or intend to take possession of them. Just check the commodities market to see how many things are traded in this fashion. Commodities futures are two people making a bet on the future price of a commodity they don't own nor will take possission of. Commodities are not the only thing traded on futures. Even government currencies futures are traded. Yes there is some regulation to REDUCE the risk but not ELIMINATE the risk. The best example is MARGIN, skin in the game, something governmnt policy eliminated when buying a house. The gov. eliminated the skin in the game when buying a house through Fanny and Freddy, NOT THE BANKERS OR THE CDS ORIGINATORS. Those selling CDS's severely underestimated the risk of default. Those that bought the CDS's reognized this. No amount of regulation will ever protect against horribly poor policy. What is to be gained by these people betting on something like this? they produce nothing. They don't create anything. What they do is stabilize prices ove a period of time, nothing else, which is invaluable for a stable economy.

There is only one reason that I can see for preventing someone buying life insurance on is the increase is risk of unnatural death. That would be an infringement on MY freedom. I just took one of your examples to justify intervention and the reason for it. I would have nothing to gain and something to lose. A good arguement for prohibiting it.

starjack
12-02-2011, 03:28 PM
I thought the fantasy league was another thread?

Politics, while bearing an eerie similarity to football, does not always translate.

My guy, your guy, my party, your party...us vs them...may not be the best way.

What we're most likely faced with in 2012, are two imperfect candidates from whom we must choose.

Woe is us. JD

PS on a side note, visiting Sportsman's, 5.56 ammo seems to be well stocked. I still have my guns, don't you? Gas was $2.78. Then I went to Texas Roadhouse for dinner. Every table was full. Costco, same thing. If there is a recession going on, I don't see it.One little corner does not make all of the USA

caryalsobrook
12-07-2011, 08:08 AM
Oh the answer is SO SIMPLE! Corn, cotton, soybeans and more commodities than I can mention are sold by those who don't own or have them and never intend to own them. They are also bought when those that buy them never need them or intend to take possession of them. Just check the commodities market to see how many things are traded in this fashion. Commodities futures are two people making a bet on the future price of a commodity they don't own nor will take possission of. Commodities are not the only thing traded on futures. Even government currencies futures are traded. Yes there is some regulation to REDUCE the risk but not ELIMINATE the risk. The best example is MARGIN, skin in the game, something governmnt policy eliminated when buying a house. The gov. eliminated the skin in the game when buying a house through Fanny and Freddy, NOT THE BANKERS OR THE CDS ORIGINATORS. Those selling CDS's severely underestimated the risk of default. Those that bought the CDS's reognized this. No amount of regulation will ever protect against horribly poor policy. What is to be gained by these people betting on something like this? they produce nothing. They don't create anything. What they do is stabilize prices ove a period of time, nothing else, which is invaluable for a stable economy.

There is only one reason that I can see for preventing someone buying life insurance on is the increase is risk of unnatural death. That would be an infringement on MY freedom. I just took one of your examples to justify intervention and the reason for it. I would have nothing to gain and something to lose. A good arguement for prohibiting it.

It took me some time to understand what CDS's actually were, and I hadn't thought about them in a while. I do think now that the name "credit default swaps" is misleading and understanding them would have been much easier had they been Called Credit Default Futures. There was so much money involved in CDS's, you have made me wonder why an open market trading them has not been established. I wonder, is it not BECAUSE OF REGULATION? I don't know the answer but it sure would be nice to actually know the facts.

I also noticed that you did not try to contest my explanation.