For Dogman

On Nov 10, 12:54*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Nov 6, 12:56*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:49*pm, Bill Rose wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:24*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
And I'll ask again. *You complain about what the
FED did. *What would you have done if not to
drastically lower interest rates and flood the
economy with liquidity? * They did that and that
directly helped millions of ordinary Americans.
Plenty of people who had 6 or 7% mortgages
refinanced them at 4.5% which put money into
their pockets today and will save them huge
amounts over the life of the loan.

Simple. The government *supports subprime loans, and banks that
leveraged
10 to 30 *times their assets go belly up, and the leaders of those
companies go to in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for fraud.

Sigh. *I outlined the basics of the problem. *Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. *It's just vague jibberish. *There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. *The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. *How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

As for letting the banks go belly up, aside from the chilling effect
that would
have on the economy, you have heard of FDIC no? *So, while you may
feel
better seeing the banks fail, a good portion of that failure is then
going to wind
up paid for by the govt.

As for fraud, if the govt has a case where they can prove fraud, they
are
free to bring it at any time. *I think Eric Holder is in your
political realm, not
mine. *And making arrests would help get his boss re-elected. *The
Bush
administration had no problem bringing lots of cases after the stock
market collapse in 2000.... Enron, Tyco, Wcom, etc execs were
successfully prosecuted.
Yet, few arrests have been made. *You think just maybe it's because
they know they have no case? *That what you claim is such heinous
fraud
is actually more a case of Wall Street incompetence and being caught
up in the same irrational exuberance as the buyer and seller of that
house
*in Miami?

Bull pucky.
They leveraged the leverage, and it wasn't the first time.

See, here's the thing. *You have to understand cause and effect.
Wall Street could leverage derivatives on mortgages all they want
and it would NOT cause a collapse in home prices. *The only way
for that to happen was for the HOUSES to have been overvalued
and bought with mortgages that the buyers ultimately either could
not continue to pay, or in many cases simply chose not to pay
and walked away from. *That is how you get a decline in the
home prices and the mortgages themselves taking a hit.

Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that foolish and greedy
homebuyers were every bit as much a part of the problem as
those on Wall Street that packaged the loans and sold them
to investors. * *There are plenty of people responsible all
along the way. *But clearly it includes the people who bought
homes with little or no money down and no savings, etc to
rely on if necessary. * And the govt encouraged those loans.
In fact, they forced banks to make them. *So, spare us the
nonsense of it just being evil Wall Street that created this
whole mess. *Goldman Sachs was not in Miami when that
house was bought. *Nor did they higher the appraiser that
valued the house. *Many of the people caught up in this
bubble were homebuyers who were every bit as greedy
as anyone on Wall Street. * And when the deal went against
them and the house was worth a lot less than the mortgage,
they simply walked away.

Speaking of Miami, I'm still waiting for an answer:

*Sigh. *I outlined the basics of the problem. *Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. *It's just vague jibberish. *There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. *The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. *How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

And if the house is only worth $160,000, offer it to the occupant for
$160,000. That is all the bank will get by kicking the occupant on to
the street. Are you really that obtuse?

Again, that is not an answer. *You said the govt should support the
buyer. *So, how exactly do they do that? * The govt does not own
the house or the mortgage. * So, step by step, what exactly does
the govt do? * Who does the govt give money, if any, to?
*This is where you have a problem. *You like to
take digested garbage from some left wing kooks and paint
broad smears across select segments of capitalism.

You call Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
Department in the Reagan administration and a former associate editor of
the Wall Street Journal. He has taught at Georgetown University and
Stanford University and is the author of many books, including
Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider¹s Account of Policymaking in
Washington, a left wing kook?

Wat'chew smokin' boy?

Just as I thought, you have no answer as to how to deal with
the problem. You also have a remarkable need for pre-digested
with no ability to analyze or give an answer yourself.




"it suggests that the bailout is either incompetence or fraud, because
the problem, according to the government, is the defaulting mortgages,
so the money should be directed at refinancing the mortgages and paying
off the foreclosed ones.

As I've asked, how do you refinance a house where the house is
now worth $160K, but has a $190K mortgage and the homeowner
just want to walk away from it? Are you advocating handing over
$190K
of govt money to
the bank or investor that owns that mortgage and making them whole?
That's worse than the govt LOANING the money which is being paid back
and at the same time, the issuers of the mortgages are taking major
losses.

Assuming the govt did buy out the existing mortgage, then what?
The govt issuing a new mortgage? For what amount? The homeowner
could not pay the $190K mortgage, what evidence is there that they
could then pay a $160K mortgage? Or that the homeowner would even
want that, where now they have a house with 0 equity that may decline
further, instead of just walking away? Hmmm?

See, it's easy to claim there are all kinds of solutions, but clearly
you
are not capable of even outlining even the basic steps in one for the
simple example above.





And that would restore the value of the
mortgage-backed securities that are threatening the financial
institutions. If the value was restored, the crisis would be over.


Gee, you really think so? First you rail against govt bailing out
Wall Street with LOANS. Now you want them to restore the value
of the mortgages so the investors take no loss at all. And what a
great
principle it would set. Instead of making investors take a loss,
you want to just bail them out completely with tax payer money.




So
there¹s no connection between the government¹s explanation of the crisis
and its solution to the crisis."
*- Paul Craig Roberts


Try thinking for yourself instead of relying solely on pre-digested
snippets.


http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/17/ex_asst_treasury_sec_paul_craig

Yet, when
it comes time for the specifics of how you would have addressed
the problem, all we hear are crickets.

You call Paul Craig Roberts a cricket?

You be out of your mind, Bozo.

I called crickets on your inability to provide an answer to my
question:

A guy in Miami bought a house in 2006 for $200K with a $190K mortgage.
It's now worth $160K and his best option appears to be to walk away
from it. How does the govt "restore" the value of his house to
$200K?
What exactly does the govt do? Who do they give the money to and
how much?

Chip.... Chirp.... Chirp.....

And yes, you can add Roberts to your list cricket list toom, unless
you can show us where he gave a plan with specifics that address
the above very, very simple case.




You can't read very well, can you? And where is my response?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...an-bubble-mach
ine-20100405

Your response to the article, s'il te plait.

Since when is Rolling Stone a credible source on the workings of
the financial world?

Who do you want, Nomi Prins, Paul Craig Roberts, or Joseph Stiglitz?
It's all the same. Only the neanderthals want to blame those who got
subprime loans.

No, the people who include those that bought houses with subprime
loans in the list of those responsible are people who still believe in
personal responsibiltiy. That obviously excludes you, who look
only to blame Wall Street, which, in most cases, never made the
loan to begin with. I gave you a long list of who's responsible and
I'll give it again:

Home buyer
Original loan issuer
Real estate agents
Govt which subsidized home buying and forced banks to make subprime
loans
Fannie and Freddie
FED which failed to do anything to curb speculation in real estate
Wall Street that pooled the mortgages and created more exotic
derivatives on them
Investors, ie sophisticated institutions that bought the loans without
due diligence
Rating agencies

There are probably others that could be added. Compare that to your
list. Oh, you have no list.....





As I said, subprime loans only accounted for $1.4
trillion, yet the government paid out $14 trillion to cover the
investment banks who had leveraged $1.4 trillion into $140 trillion of
collateralized debt obligations. Countries go belly up, and Wall St.
brokers get billions in bonuses. You are such a schmuck.



There you go again. The govt did not PAY $14 tril to cover
anything. Most of that $14tril is in lending by the FED to banks.
Which is exactly what the FED has been doing since it's
creation. That is one of the main functions of any central
bank. That money is LOANED out, not given away. Same
thing with TARP. Yes, they flooded the system with liquidity.
It was a desperate attempt to avoid a depression. And so
far, it appears to have worked.

And it was not just the subprime portion of the mortgage
market that was the problem. The problem was ALL real
estate became overvalued at levels that could not be
sustained. The price of ALL real estate declined, causing
people to wind up owing more on houses than they were
worth. And again, your answer for how to deal with
this is......?

On Nov 10, 12:33*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:49*pm, Bill Rose wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:24*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
And I'll ask again. *You complain about what the
FED did. *What would you have done if not to
drastically lower interest rates and flood the
economy with liquidity? * They did that and that
directly helped millions of ordinary Americans.
Plenty of people who had 6 or 7% mortgages
refinanced them at 4.5% which put money into
their pockets today and will save them huge
amounts over the life of the loan.

Simple. The government *supports subprime loans, and banks that
leveraged
10 to 30 *times their assets go belly up, and the leaders of those
companies go to in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for fraud.

Sigh. *I outlined the basics of the problem. *Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. *It's just vague jibberish. *There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. *The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. *How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

As for letting the banks go belly up, aside from the chilling effect
that would
have on the economy, you have heard of FDIC no? *So, while you may
feel
better seeing the banks fail, a good portion of that failure is then
going to wind
up paid for by the govt.

As for fraud, if the govt has a case where they can prove fraud, they
are
free to bring it at any time. *I think Eric Holder is in your
political realm, not
mine. *And making arrests would help get his boss re-elected. *The
Bush
administration had no problem bringing lots of cases after the stock
market collapse in 2000.... Enron, Tyco, Wcom, etc execs were
successfully prosecuted.
Yet, few arrests have been made. *You think just maybe it's because
they know they have no case? *That what you claim is such heinous
fraud
is actually more a case of Wall Street incompetence and being caught
up in the same irrational exuberance as the buyer and seller of that
house
*in Miami?

Bull pucky.
They leveraged the leverage, and it wasn't the first time.

See, here's the thing. *You have to understand cause and effect.
Wall Street could leverage derivatives on mortgages all they want
and it would NOT cause a collapse in home prices. *The only way
for that to happen was for the HOUSES to have been overvalued
and bought with mortgages that the buyers ultimately either could
not continue to pay, or in many cases simply chose not to pay
and walked away from. *That is how you get a decline in the
home prices and the mortgages themselves taking a hit.

Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that foolish and greedy
homebuyers were every bit as much a part of the problem as
those on Wall Street that packaged the loans and sold them
to investors. * *There are plenty of people responsible all
along the way. *But clearly it includes the people who bought
homes with little or no money down and no savings, etc to
rely on if necessary. * And the govt encouraged those loans.
In fact, they forced banks to make them. *So, spare us the
nonsense of it just being evil Wall Street that created this
whole mess. *Goldman Sachs was not in Miami when that
house was bought. *Nor did they higher the appraiser that
valued the house. *Many of the people caught up in this
bubble were homebuyers who were every bit as greedy
as anyone on Wall Street. * And when the deal went against
them and the house was worth a lot less than the mortgage,
they simply walked away.

Speaking of Miami, I'm still waiting for an answer:

*Sigh. *I outlined the basics of the problem. *Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. *It's just vague jibberish. *There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. *The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. *How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

You claim to have the answers. *How does the govt "support"
the above situation?

Dear Bozo, subprime defaults amounted to $1.4 trillion. How do you
explain the $14 trillion paid by the government? Hummm?
--
- Billy

E pluribus unum
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-m...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, stop lying. The govt has not paid $14tril. Almost all of
that is FED lending to banks and buying of bonds which is exactly
what any central bank does. The FED has been doing that
since it's creation. Yes, they stepped it up heavily to flood
liquidity into the system and lower interest rates. That was a
desperate action to avoid a depression. Had they not done
so, you'd be here bitching about 20% unemployment and the
collapse of the whole financial system. If you take out a car
loan from Bank of America, do you claim that BOA paid $20K
for your car? Or do you say it's a loan?

Try taking a course or two in economics

In article
,
" wrote:

On Nov 10, 12:33*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:49*pm, Bill Rose wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:24*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
And I'll ask again. *You complain about what the
FED did. *What would you have done if not to
drastically lower interest rates and flood the
economy with liquidity? * They did that and that
directly helped millions of ordinary Americans.
Plenty of people who had 6 or 7% mortgages
refinanced them at 4.5% which put money into
their pockets today and will save them huge
amounts over the life of the loan.

Simple. The government *supports subprime loans, and banks that
leveraged
10 to 30 *times their assets go belly up, and the leaders of those
companies go to in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for fraud.

Sigh. *I outlined the basics of the problem. *Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. *It's just vague jibberish. *There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. *The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. *How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

As for letting the banks go belly up, aside from the chilling effect
that would
have on the economy, you have heard of FDIC no? *So, while you may
feel
better seeing the banks fail, a good portion of that failure is then
going to wind
up paid for by the govt.

As for fraud, if the govt has a case where they can prove fraud, they
are
free to bring it at any time. *I think Eric Holder is in your
political realm, not
mine. *And making arrests would help get his boss re-elected. *The
Bush
administration had no problem bringing lots of cases after the stock
market collapse in 2000.... Enron, Tyco, Wcom, etc execs were
successfully prosecuted.
Yet, few arrests have been made. *You think just maybe it's because
they know they have no case? *That what you claim is such heinous
fraud
is actually more a case of Wall Street incompetence and being caught
up in the same irrational exuberance as the buyer and seller of that
house
*in Miami?

Bull pucky.
They leveraged the leverage, and it wasn't the first time.

See, here's the thing. *You have to understand cause and effect.
Wall Street could leverage derivatives on mortgages all they want
and it would NOT cause a collapse in home prices. *The only way
for that to happen was for the HOUSES to have been overvalued
and bought with mortgages that the buyers ultimately either could
not continue to pay, or in many cases simply chose not to pay
and walked away from. *That is how you get a decline in the
home prices and the mortgages themselves taking a hit.

Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that foolish and greedy
homebuyers were every bit as much a part of the problem as
those on Wall Street that packaged the loans and sold them
to investors. * *There are plenty of people responsible all
along the way. *But clearly it includes the people who bought
homes with little or no money down and no savings, etc to
rely on if necessary. * And the govt encouraged those loans.
In fact, they forced banks to make them. *So, spare us the
nonsense of it just being evil Wall Street that created this
whole mess. *Goldman Sachs was not in Miami when that
house was bought. *Nor did they higher the appraiser that
valued the house. *Many of the people caught up in this
bubble were homebuyers who were every bit as greedy
as anyone on Wall Street. * And when the deal went against
them and the house was worth a lot less than the mortgage,
they simply walked away.

Speaking of Miami, I'm still waiting for an answer:

*Sigh. *I outlined the basics of the problem. *Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. *It's just vague jibberish. *There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. *The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. *How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

You claim to have the answers. *How does the govt "support"
the above situation?

Dear Bozo, subprime defaults amounted to $1.4 trillion. How do you
explain the $14 trillion paid by the government? Hummm?
--
- Billy

E pluribus unum
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-m...-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, stop lying. The govt has not paid $14tril. Almost all of
that is FED lending to banks and buying of bonds which is exactly
what any central bank does.
Bonds? You mean worthless, highly leveraged, toxic securities that were
purchased at face value. This had nothing to do with expanding or
shrinking the money supply.
The FED has been doing that
since it's creation. Yes, they stepped it up heavily to flood
liquidity into the system and lower interest rates. That was a
desperate action to avoid a depression. Had they not done
so, you'd be here bitching about 20% unemployment and the
collapse of the whole financial system.
Now you claim to be a clairvoyant. What do you see in your crystal ball
about the future of the deregulated holding banks that got us to where
we are now?
If you take out a car
loan from Bank of America, do you claim that BOA paid $20K
for your car? Or do you say it's a loan?
Was the car dealership a big customer of the bank that knew the car was
worthless? Everybody collects their fees and bonuses, but the consumer
is stuck with a junk car and debt.

The New Deal cost an estimated $32 billion in its day, which would be
about $500 billion in today¹s dollars. The Marshall Plan cost about
$12.7 billion, which is the equivalent of a paltry $115.3 billion. The
Louisiana Purchase? The French got $15 million, which would be worth
about $217 billion today.*
If you take those three items, add in the adjusted costs of the Race to
the Moon, the savings and loan crisis, the Korean War, the Iraq war, the
Vietnam War and assistance for NASA, you still get to just $3.92
trillion ‹ not even half of the taxpayers¹ exposure today



Try taking a course or two in economics

You've lost your mind, haven't you?

The FED bailing out the financial banks allowed them to take 0% interest
loans and invest them in American Treasury Bonds for 3% interest (tax
payer money earning profits for the blood suckers). No wonder that there
is so little loan assistance coming from these thieves for normal
industry financing which was the putative reason for the loans.

Europe's financial problems are also rooted in Wall Street's over
leveraged house of cards. All those AAA CDOs, that S&P, and Moody said
were so good, where purchased all around the world. Pensions have become
a dirty word, because of their investments lost in all those AAA CDOs,
that S&P, and Moody said were so good, they can no longer cover their
commitments.





The main points of neo-liberalism include:

1. THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private
enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no
matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to
international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by
de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won
over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total
freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this
is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to
increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's
like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow
the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

2. CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and
health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance
of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing
government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and
tax benefits for business.

3. DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that
could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on
the job.

4. PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to
private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll
highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although
usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed,
privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even
more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

5. ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and
replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest
people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care,
education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if
they fail, as "lazy."
----

The main points of Structural Readjustment Programs include:

Structural Readjustment Programs of the International Monetary Fund
tend to demand a certain set of domestic policy changes from debtor
nations.
*
Privatization -- Structural adjustment policies call for the sell off of
government-owned enterprises to private owners, often foreign investors.
Privatization is typically associated with layoffs and pay cuts for
workers in the privatized enterprises.

Cuts in government spending -- Reductions in government spending
frequently reduce the services available to the poor, including health
and education services (though the IMF and World Bank now say they
preserve health and education spending).

Imposition of user fees -- Many IMF and World Bank loans call for the
imposition of "user fees" -- charges for the use of government-provided
services like schools, health clinics and clean drinking water. For very
poor people, even modest charges may result in the denial of access to
services.

Promotion of exports -- Under structural adjustment programs, countries
undertake a variety of measures to promote exports, at the expense of
production for domestic needs. In the rural sector, the export
orientation is often associated with the displacement of poor people who
grow food for their own consumption, as their land is taken over by
large plantations growing crops for foreign markets.

Higher interest rates -- Higher interest rates exert a recessionary
effect on national economies, leading to higher rates of joblessness.
Small businesses, often operated by women, find it more difficult to
gain access to affordable credit, and often are unable to survive.
Trade Liberalization -- The elimination of tariff protections for
industries in developing countries often leads to mass layoffs. In
Mozambique, for example, the IMF and World Bank ordered the removal of
an export tax on cashew nuts. The result: 10,000 adults, mostly women,
lost their jobs in cashew nut-processing factories. Most of the
processing work shifted to India, where child laborers shell the nuts at
home.
---

"Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose
policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for
the mantle ³worst president² when it comes to stewardship of the
American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed office and reversed
Hoover¹s policies, the country began to recover. The economic effects of
Bush¹s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to
reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of
America¹s being displaced from its position as the world¹s richest
economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling
with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush.
Remember the Surplus?"
- Joseph E. Stiglitz
December 2007

We've guns and drums, and drums and guns,
A-roo, a-roo,
We've guns and drums, and drums and guns,
A-roo, a-roo,
We've guns and drums, and drums and guns,
Indeed our dancing days are done,
America, I hardly know ye.
--
- Billy

E pluribus unum
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

On Nov 11, 11:54Â*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Nov 10, 12:33Â*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:49Â*pm, Bill Rose wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:24Â*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
And I'll ask again. Â*You complain about what the
FED did. Â*What would you have done if not to
drastically lower interest rates and flood the
economy with liquidity? Â* They did that and that
directly helped millions of ordinary Americans.
Plenty of people who had 6 or 7% mortgages
refinanced them at 4.5% which put money into
their pockets today and will save them huge
amounts over the life of the loan.

Simple. The government Â*supports subprime loans, and banks that
leveraged
10 to 30 Â*times their assets go belly up, and the leaders of those
companies go to in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for fraud.

Sigh. Â*I outlined the basics of the problem. Â*Saying "the govt
supports subprime loans"
isn't a plan. Â*It's just vague jibberish. Â*There's a house in Miami
that's only
worth $160,000 with a $190,000 mortgage. Â*The homeowner realizes that
his
best option is to walk away from it. Â*How exactly does the govt
"support" that?

As for letting the banks go belly up, aside from the chilling effect
that would
have on the economy, you have heard of FDIC no? Â*So, while you may
feel
better seeing the banks fail, a good portion of that failure is then
going to wind
up paid for by the govt.

As for fraud, if the govt has a case where they can prove fraud, they
are
free to bring it at any time. Â*I think Eric Holder is in your
political realm, not
mine. Â*And making arrests would help get his boss re-elected. Â*The
Bush
administration had no problem bringing lots of cases after the stock
market collapse in 2000.... Enron, Tyco, Wcom, etc execs were
successfully prosecuted.
Yet, few arrests have been made. Â*You think just maybe it's because
they know they have no case? Â*That what you claim is such heinous
fraud
is actually more a case of Wall Street incompetence and being caught
up in the same irrational exuberance as the buyer and seller of that
house
Â*in Miami?

Bull pucky.
They leveraged the leverage, and it wasn't the first time.

See, here's the thing. Â*You have to understand cause and effect.

In article
,
" wrote:

I was of course referring to the FED purchasing US govt
bonds via it's open market operations. If you understood
economics and the workings of the FED, you'd know that
is nothing new, has been going on since the FEDs creation,
etc.

It may come as a surprise to you that this is a low carb support group. If you want to take this to any of the "flaming"
political groups, I'd be pleased to answer any "real" questions, if you
could act intelligently and stop with your lame obfuscations.

As you must know, the Fed, previously only lent money that was backed by
AAA assets. Now the Fed is lending money on toxic assets that the "paid"
rating agencies deemed AAA, but which are mostly composed of highly
leveraged subprime loans (CDS, ABS, ect). Without these highly promoted mortages
(everybody got their fees up-front, and then the junk was sold as
derivatives) , and credit debt, (which created the housing bubble)
there couldn't have been the volume of ABS issued. The AAA ratings given
by the major rating agencies, including Standard and Poor's, Moody's
Investors Service, and Fitch Ratings, were bought and paid for by the
investment banks, which were also their clients. Paulson promised that injecting capital into the
banks would "increase the flow of financing" for the country. The Fed
loans were to create liquidity, so that banks would continue to make
business and consumer loans, but instead the money has gone into 3% T-
bills and bonds, the banks are just sitting on the loans instead of
lending. The financial banks were allowed to become holding companies,
which allows them to borrow money from the Fed at .5% interest.
Yet no matter how much equity capital was injected into the top of the
banks' balance sheets, the failure of subprime loans would continue to
crumble the leveraged pyramid of securities built on them. The essence
of the bailout left this most essential problem unfixed.

Here's how Naomi Klein, the author of The Shock Doctrine, put it: "I
don't think the financial sector bailout has ever been about fixing the
problem; it's been about using the crisis as a pretext for the greatest
transfer of public wealth into private hands in monetary history. That's
not to say that there isn't a crisis, just that the people in charge are
less interested in fixing it than in taking care of their friends who
take care of them. Its straight-up pillage, what a kleptocratic regime
does when it panics."

To sum up, the leveraged packaging of subprime loans is one giant "Ponzi" scheme,
for which the victims are being required to pay off the perpetrators.

Where was the government? For the 2008 election cycle, Senate
Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) got $132,050 from
the banking and mortgage sectors, the most of anyone not running for
president that year.

Remember it was Paulson, who came from Goldman Sachs who was orchestrating the bailout.
One transaction is particularly notable for its outrageous absurdity. On
October 28, 2008, Goldman Sachs received a capital injection of $10
billion under the Capital Purchase Program arm of TARP.
This was the third-largest one-time gift of TARP money in 2008, tied
with Morgan Stanley. The congressional valuation concluded that the
Treasury paid $10 billion for stock worth $7.5 billion. And these guys
are supposed to be good at math. Amazingly, the discrepancy for payments
to Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and PNC was even higher. But
even more amazing was that around the same time, Warren Buffett
had invested $5 billion in Goldman. Except that in his case, "For each
$100 that Berkshire Hathaway invested in Goldman Sachs, it received
securities with a fair market value of $110.

Before the funeral, there was the party. European banks, global
insurance companies and stateside pension funds, and, to a lesser extent,
U.S. banks inhaled the AAA securities on the top layers of CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligations).
Investors assumed that their risks were tiny. They weren't the only
ones. From pension funds in Ireland to private banking and insurance
specialists in Belgium, everyone was buying CDOs.77

The largest public pension fund in the United States, the California
Public Employees' Retirement System, bought $140 million in CDO
equity (the riskiest, unrated CDO slice) from Citigroup by July 2007.
Of all the CDO equity slices sold in the United States, 7 percent went
to pension funds, endowments, and religious organizations, which
bought up half a billion dollars' worth of die riskiest pieces of CDOs
between 2002 and 2007.

The investors who needed to keep their money the most ended up
taking the first hit when CDOs failed. In 2008, the New Mexico State
Investment Council, which manages investments for twenty state
agencies, including the New Mexico Retiree Health Care Authority
and the New Mexico School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, had
more than $500 million invested in equity tranches, while the General
Retirement System of Texas had $62.8 million and the Missouri State
Employees' Retirement System had a $25 million tranche.

It was the financial banks that created this catastrophe, and they are
the ones who are now milking it

If, you wish me to continue with your blovinations, you'll have to take this to another venue.

I'm done here.
--
- Billy

E pluribus unum
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

On Nov 19, 5:44*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
I was of course referring to the FED purchasing US govt
bonds via it's open market operations. *If you understood
economics and the workings of the FED, you'd know that
is nothing new, has been going on since the FEDs creation,
etc.

It may come as a surprise to you that this is a low carb support group. If you want to take this to any of the "flaming"
political groups, I'd be pleased to answer any "real" questions, if you
could act intelligently and stop with your lame obfuscations.

This coming from the clown that ends EVERY single post here
with a highly partisan political statement, which is usually a lie.

As for answering questions, I've asked the same simple question
about 6 times now and you have totally ignored it. You claimed the
govt should have directly bailed out the home buyers and supported
the housing market. So, I gave you an example situation:

A guy bought a house in Miami in 2006 for $200,000 with a $190K
mortgage. I'ts now worth $150K and having few assets, it appears
his best option is to walk away from it. How much money does the
govt give and to whom to solve that problem and all the others in
similar situations? Note that this is a typical situation and far
from
the worse case, where the home could have dropped 50% in value.

Crickets......

Try thinking for yourself for once, instead of just regurgitating
recycled
partisan crap from others and answer the simple question.

In article
,
" wrote:

On Nov 19, 5:44*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
I was of course referring to the FED purchasing US govt
bonds via it's open market operations. *If you understood
economics and the workings of the FED, you'd know that
is nothing new, has been going on since the FEDs creation,
etc.

It may come as a surprise to you that this is a low carb support group. If
you want to take this to any of the "flaming"
political groups, I'd be pleased to answer any "real" questions, if you
could act intelligently and stop with your lame obfuscations.

This coming from the clown that ends EVERY single post here
with a highly partisan political statement, which is usually a lie.

As for answering questions, I've asked the same simple question
about 6 times now and you have totally ignored it. You claimed the
govt should have directly bailed out the home buyers and supported
the housing market. So, I gave you an example situation:

A guy bought a house in Miami in 2006 for $200,000 with a $190K
mortgage. I'ts now worth $150K and having few assets, it appears
his best option is to walk away from it. How much money does the
govt give and to whom to solve that problem and all the others in
similar situations? Note that this is a typical situation and far
from
the worse case, where the home could have dropped 50% in value.

Crickets......

Try thinking for yourself for once, instead of just regurgitating
recycled
partisan crap from others and answer the simple question.

I told you the rules, Scumbag. What part of "done" don't you understand?

And now for the "highly partisan political statement".
--
- Billy

E pluribus unum
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

On Nov 20, 1:02*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Nov 19, 5:44*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
I was of course referring to the FED purchasing US govt
bonds via it's open market operations. *If you understood
economics and the workings of the FED, you'd know that
is nothing new, has been going on since the FEDs creation,
etc.

It may come as a surprise to you that this is a low carb support group. If
you want to take this to any of the "flaming"
political groups, I'd be pleased to answer any "real" questions, if you
could act intelligently and stop with your lame obfuscations.

This coming from the clown that ends EVERY single post here
with a highly partisan political statement, which is usually a lie.

As for answering questions, I've asked the same simple question
about 6 times now and you have totally ignored it. * You claimed the
govt should have directly bailed out the home buyers and supported
the housing market. * So, I gave you an example situation:

A guy bought a house in Miami in 2006 for $200,000 with a $190K
mortgage. * I'ts now worth $150K and having few assets, it appears
his best option is to walk away from it. *How much money does the
govt give and to whom to solve that problem and all the others in
similar situations? *Note that this is a typical situation and far
from
the worse case, where the home could have dropped 50% in value.

Crickets......

Try thinking for yourself for once, instead of just regurgitating
recycled
partisan crap from others and answer the simple question.

I told you the rules, Scumbag. What part of "done" don't you understand?

And now for the "highly partisan political statement".
--
- Billy


What? You back again? With another off topic post after you
said your last one was the end? Gee, I'm surprised.

And now, unable to answer a very simple question grounded
in reality, which requires some thinking on your part, you
instead resort to name calling. Typical.

Here's the simple question for you for about the seventh time
now:

A guy bought a house in Miami in 2006 for $200,000 with a $190K
mortgage. I'ts now worth $150K and having few assets, it appears
his best option is to walk away from it. How much money does the
govt give and to whom to solve that problem and all the others in
similar situations? Note that this is a typical situation and far
from the worse case, where the home could have dropped 50% in value.


Crickets......


Try thinking for yourself for once, instead of just regurgitating
recycled partisan crap from others and answer the simple question.

In article
,
" wrote:

On Nov 20, 1:02*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Nov 19, 5:44*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
I was of course referring to the FED purchasing US govt
bonds via it's open market operations. *If you understood
economics and the workings of the FED, you'd know that
is nothing new, has been going on since the FEDs creation,
etc.

It may come as a surprise to you that this is a low carb support group.
If
you want to take this to any of the "flaming"
political groups, I'd be pleased to answer any "real" questions, if you
could act intelligently and stop with your lame obfuscations.

This coming from the clown that ends EVERY single post here
with a highly partisan political statement, which is usually a lie.

As for answering questions, I've asked the same simple question
about 6 times now and you have totally ignored it. * You claimed the
govt should have directly bailed out the home buyers and supported
the housing market. * So, I gave you an example situation:

A guy bought a house in Miami in 2006 for $200,000 with a $190K
mortgage. * I'ts now worth $150K and having few assets, it appears
his best option is to walk away from it. *How much money does the
govt give and to whom to solve that problem and all the others in
similar situations? *Note that this is a typical situation and far
from
the worse case, where the home could have dropped 50% in value.

Crickets......

Try thinking for yourself for once, instead of just regurgitating
recycled
partisan crap from others and answer the simple question.

I told you the rules, Scumbag. What part of "done" don't you understand?

And now for the "highly partisan political statement".
--
- Billy


What? You back again? With another off topic post after you
said your last one was the end? Gee, I'm surprised.

And now, unable to answer a very simple question grounded
in reality, which requires some thinking on your part, you
instead resort to name calling. Typical.

Here's the simple question for you for about the seventh time
now:

A guy bought a house in Miami in 2006 for $200,000 with a $190K
mortgage. I'ts now worth $150K and having few assets, it appears
his best option is to walk away from it. How much money does the
govt give and to whom to solve that problem and all the others in
similar situations? Note that this is a typical situation and far
from the worse case, where the home could have dropped 50% in value.


Crickets......


Try thinking for yourself for once, instead of just regurgitating
recycled partisan crap from others and answer the simple question.

I'd suggest more roughage to decrease the pressure on your brain.
Exercise is good too. The answer you seek is right in front of you.
--
- Billy

E pluribus unum
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96993722

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 07:15:46 -0800, Billy
wrote:

I'd suggest more roughage to decrease the pressure on your brain.
Exercise is good too. The answer you seek is right in front of you.

These are not the droids you are looking for...