Condi Rice Trial Balloon Sighted

Quote from 377OHMS:

I'm puzzled by the attempt to demonize the Tea Party.

I can't recall them doing anything unlawful during their gatherings. They didn't litter, didn't confront police or otherwise riot. They did not try to blow up a bridge or threaten politicians or businesses. It seems to me that the Tea Party met peacefully and worked to put conservative candidates on the ballot. I didn't like all of their candidates, Sharon Angle comes to mind, but they seemed overall to have noble goals and worked peacefully towards those goals. I never saw any evidence of racist slogans or racist signs at Tea Party gatherings.

The stuff the left has said about the Tea Party seems undeserved. I think that the left considers dishonesty to be just another legitimate tool in their toolbox to be used to retain power at any cost.

Quite bluntly the leftists see curtailing govt largess as racist, kinda lets you know where their values are doesn't it?
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I believe Ron Paul ran on pretty much that platform. The Republicans are not going to ban abortion. it is just a hot button issue both parties use to rev up the people on either side of the issue.

I think there are many in the republican party who would be very happy to never hear about social issues again, but the democrats keep pushing the envelope with stuff that is totally unacceptable to most voters. Gay marriage for example...
Like these examples?

Polls in 2012

A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.[10]

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.[11]

A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.[12][13]

A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement.[15] A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.[16]

An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.[17]

A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.[19]

A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.[20]
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

Not sure its that clear cut, what about all the people who expect govt money? People want national health insurance, they want the rich to pay an UNFAIR % of the bills, and then demonize them. They want their contraception paid for. They want their abortions paid for. They don't want us to utilize our own natural resources. And so on.. these all have a financial impact. I don't want to just clean up the deficit, I want the govt cut down in size and scope.. massively. I can't get on board with entitlements, any of them. Yeah, healthcare is a problem but I would rather see the infinitely wise govt promote a free market type solution. The truly poor receive money from the govt and if some of it has to go to their healthcare then that's the way it has to be. Obamacare is not going to fix problems, it is going to create them.

Also when I said abandon the social issues, i really meant the stigma attached to the GOP. I do think that the dems and obama have gone way overboard authoritarian, and the reps do need to oppose that shit. But when like, Laura Ingram starts ranting about porn star girls being victims.. lol shut up. Just let people be free and live how they want, but don't make the rest of us pay for it, or demand certain non criminal behavior. With individual freedom comes personal responsibility.

As for abortion, I can deal with the current law. But I am still uncomfortable knowing that most of those fetuses were going to develop into people. Anything later than the 3 months though should be considered a fucking crime (under normal circumstances).

Believe or not, I am an "at conception" lifer. However, I still cannot bring myself to ban abortion even if I had the power to do so. That is between them and their higher power, and it would simply create an underground economy. Keep it above ground, where we can see it.

Entitlement, if you are equally against farm subsidies AND welfare, then I am cool with that too. The GOP seems a bit slanted about that these days.

If the GOP really want to be fiscal hawks, kill ALL entitlements. But they won't do that, will they?

Worse I would bet that IF the GOP were willing to slash and burn ALL waste, ALL pork, and ALL crony capitalism, you would be amazed at how many people would sign on, I think.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I believe Ron Paul ran on pretty much that platform. The Republicans are not going to ban abortion. it is just a hot button issue both parties use to rev up the people on either side of the issue.

I think there are many in the republican party who would be very happy to never hear about social issues again, but the democrats keep pushing the envelope with stuff that is totally unacceptable to most voters. Gay marriage for example. It's lost every time it's on the ballot, but they keep pushing it because it is so important to segments of their base, such as the wealthy homo crowd, hollywood, the media and the universities. So the social issue stuff is a two way street at the very least.

Democrats have no interest in addressing the deficit, except to use it as a vehicle to trick the republicans into agreeing to tax hikes. They used that same trick on Reagan and the first Bush. The idea of tax increases now in exchange for spending cuts later is a total nonstarter.

If democrats had any interest in cutting the deficit, they wouldn't have demonized the Tea Party. They rightfully saw the Tea Party as an existential threat to them, because the basic principle of the party is taking from one group and giving it to another.

Obama has elevated it to an art form almost. It's not just taxes. Look at these crazy lawsuits against banks for supposedly overcharging minorities for mortgages. What's next, a suit againt Coach for overcharging for bags? You don't like the deal they offer, go down the street to someone else. In obama's America it is against the law to negotiate a good deal, that is if you did it with some minority, who can then run to the Justice Department and demand money.

Ah now AAA, that's bias showing. And frankly I am a bit surprised, being the populist that you seem to be, that you would side with the banks.

Why would the banks settle if they were innocent? It can't be to get on with their lives can it?:D
 
Quote from RCG Trader:

Ah now AAA, that's bias showing. And frankly I am a bit surprised, being the populist that you seem to be, that you would side with the banks.

Why would the banks settle if they were innocent? It can't be to get on with their lives can it?:D

The banks can be put under all kinds of pressure by the regulators. Also, current management can just write it off as something someone else did, take a charge and move on, versus have it go on for years, racking up millions in legal fees and maybe lose and end up with a huge judgment against them. Our legal system makes the one in pakistan look good.

Tell me if you don't think the basic element in the case is absurd: that they charged minorities "too much." Even more absurd, the banks didn't originate the mortgages themselves. Independent brokers did. I agree that a lot of these brokers were dirtbags and the banks knew it and looked the other way.

Any classical economist would look at this set of allegations and say all it proves is that minorities are unable or unwilling to comparison shop effectively. If broker A wants to put you in an unfavorable mortgage, wouldn't the rational thing to do be to go to broker B and see what he was offering? Why is the bank's fault if you are too dim to do that?

Of course, there is another explanation, one that I suspect is closer to the truth. These mortgages were secured with fraudulent documentation. The borrowers had no bargaining power because the broker was usisng bogus numbers to get them the mortgage. The banks were at least somewhat aware of it, but didn't really care because they were securitizing the mortgages and selling them off.

They'd rather pay a fine than have all this come to light.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The banks can be put under all kinds of pressure by the regulators. Also, current management can just write it off as something someone else did, take a charge and move on, versus have it go on for years, racking up millions in legal fees and maybe lose and end up with a huge judgment against them. Our legal system makes the one in pakistan look good.

Tell me if you don't think the basic element in the case is absurd: that they charged minorities "too much." Even more absurd, the banks didn't originate the mortgages themselves. Independent brokers did. I agree that a lot of these brokers were dirtbags and the banks knew it and looked the other way.

Any classical economist would look at this set of allegations and say all it proves is that minorities are unable or unwilling to comparison shop effectively. If broker A wants to put you in an unfavorable mortgage, wouldn't the rational thing to do be to go to broker B and see what he was offering? Why is the bank's fault if you are too dim to do that?

Of course, there is another explanation, one that I suspect is closer to the truth. These mortgages were secured with fraudulent documentation. The borrowers had no bargaining power because the broker was usisng bogus numbers to get them the mortgage. The banks were at least somewhat aware of it, but didn't really care because they were securitizing the mortgages and selling them off.

They'd rather pay a fine than have all this come to light.

Your assertion is reasonable, of course.

But the banks still know that someone working at WalMart had no business living in Alpharetta( an affluent zip in Atl.) Hell, everyone else knew it, why didn't BAC or WFC??

Instead, they became institutional level predatory pay day loan type joints.

The were, in fact gouging unqualified borrowers whom they knew were likely to default. Get extra money for as long as they could hold up, and then get the property when they inevitably defaulted.

Surely you don't defend this, do you?
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The banks can be put under all kinds of pressure by the regulators.
Apparently they can also be sleeping with the regulators.
 
Quote from Ricter:

Apparently they can also be sleeping with the regulators.

and freedie and/or fannie people were sleeping with barney frank.

Also note the mortgage brokers typically got 1 to 2 points on a loan.
with the toxic loans they got 3 to 5 points.


Can you imagine...

100% loan to value on no docs.
Brokers gets 5 points
Wall street syndicators get there big cuts...

and some buyer for a big institution comes along and buys it?

(the sell side must have been bribing the buy side the way the way mozilo bribed democrats like Chris Dodd with loan discounts or worse.)
 
Quote from jem:

and freedie and/or fannie people were sleeping with barney frank.

Also note the mortgage brokers typically got 1 to 2 points on a loan.
with the toxic loans they got 3 to 5 points.


Can you imagine...

100% loan to value on no docs.
Brokers gets 5 points
Wall street syndicators get there big cuts...

and some buyer for a big institution comes along and buys it?

(the sell side must have been bribing the buy side the way the way mozilo bribed democrats like Chris Dodd with loan discounts or worse.)
We covered this ground last year, in a different AAA fantasy thread.

Fannie and Freddie do not even make the top 25 list for subprime.

"Here's a fresh reminder from Forbes Magazine (of all places) as to who the real villains are in the current recession:

" It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

"Securitization accelerated in the mid-1990s. The total amount of mortgage-backed securities issued almost tripled between 1996 and 2007, to $7.3 trillion. The securitized share of subprime mortgages (i.e., those passed to third-party investors via MBS) increased from 54% in 2001, to 75% in 2006.[85] A sample of 735 CDO deals originated between 1999 and 2007 showed that subprime and other less-than-prime mortgages represented an increasing percentage of CDO assets, rising from 5% in 2000 to 36% in 2007.[104] American homeowners, consumers, and corporations owed roughly $25 trillion during 2008. American banks retained about $8 trillion of that total directly as traditional mortgage loans. Bondholders and other traditional lenders provided another $7 trillion. The remaining $10 trillion came from the securitization markets. The securitization markets started to close down in the spring of 2007 and nearly shut-down in the fall of 2008. More than a third of the private credit markets thus became unavailable as a source of funds.[105][106] In February 2009, Ben Bernanke stated that securitization markets remained effectively shut, with the exception of conforming mortgages, which could be sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
 
What the heck?

You suggesting it was okay that Barney Franks lover to be the board at Freddie or Fannie

That it was okay that Dodd was getting subsidized loans loans from country wide.


That creeps like Barney Frank and Maxine Waters were not getting on t.v. during hearings and demanding banks kiss their asses and do stupid things?

--

Fannie and Freedie were in the alt a and interest only market.
They were as stupid as and corrupt as the wall street banks.
 
Back
Top