It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by 46ACE
You are essentially correct, however, if a person say "invents" a sub prime mortgage, sells that in a predatory way to people he KNOWS cannot afford it, over-inflates the actual value of those investments, then, bundles those mortgages and re sells them to other banks, thereby hinging the entire economy on bad investments, BETS against those assets he knows are going to fail. Then when the whole thing comes crashing down, reaps not only the rewards off of his bets that those investments would fail but brings the entire economy crashing down with it. One could say that they did something wrong and probably do owe "us".
A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats. Both entities were recently taken over by the government, a move that puts trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. But Democrats in Congress, also known as “the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,” were having none of this “responsibility” stuff. ”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. ”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said. The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time. In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it. [...] During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, [Democrat in bed with the mortgage industry Chris] Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation. According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 by representatives of these entities. And, in case you were wondering, John McCain co-sponsored a bill requiring greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac regulation in 2005. It was also blocked procedurally by Democrats.
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I am speaking from experience as a chief steward in a public sector workplace, one who has also negotiated a contract. You can't talk me out of what I know is right, so we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree. That work for you?
Yeah, well, if you read my other posts you know I've also been a union member and have seen the waste and sweetheart deals in action, too. You can't convince me to give up what I know is right either.
And thank God that the number of people agreeing with you on screwing the system - the government using taxpayer money in this case - for their own personal gain and the hell with the rest of us is sharply decreasing in the U.S
Originally posted by zappafan1
reply to post by BillfromCovina
That rant sounds exactly like what I would expect from someone who lives on the Left coast. The sooner Cal. falls into the water, the better.
Originally posted by rizla
Moore talks total and obvious sense. Distribute wealth fairly. Duh. It's not rocket science.
And yet so many people on this thread attack him. Many Americans have been mis-educated into supporting the people who are reducing their standard of living.edit on 9-3-2011 by rizla because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by zappafan1
I correct my figure for the public union pension debt of page 9; it is currently $100 Billion, not the $300 Billion figure mentioned. It is, however, still an amount that can never be paid considering the revenues generated by taxes.
Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Aggie Man
Why not create your own wealth instead of worrying who has what?
Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Whose fault is it the public sector employees chose to put all their eggs in one basket and not prepare for their own retirement instead of relying on a governmental entity to do it for them?
Relying on anyone or anything other than yourself for your future is an exercise in stupidity.
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Whose fault is it the public sector employees chose to put all their eggs in one basket and not prepare for their own retirement instead of relying on a governmental entity to do it for them?
Relying on anyone or anything other than yourself for your future is an exercise in stupidity.
It's called a contract. Your response is lame, and so is blaming the victim.
Funny, though...there's always enough money in the basket to kill brown people.
I thought capitalism was suppose to be sustainable. I didn't think capitalism was some game with the end result mirroring that of a board game.
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Aggie Man
Capitalism is sustainable, as long as the liberal interventionists stay out of the system, and avoid putting the " spin " on it, claiming nationalization is in the best interest of the people.
It is not the job of the Government to create jobs. As well, its not the role of government to take from others, and give to others. Government is not suppose to intervene just because banks are failing, businesses are going under. These businesses, rationalize their actions, by accepting the fact that markets fall, and a little assistance from the government is legitimate. They accept this " bridge loan " to tide them over. That in itself is intervention. Though Fascism isn't on their mind, they openly embrace being a " junior partner" with the government. Instead of standing up and accepting the cold hard truths of the free market, they would rather align themselves with those who wish to " spin " ( see above ) and embrace nationalization.
Originally posted by Darkrunner
Me personally? If I had an idea for a world changing invention, but knew that that I was going to be taxed up my behind on the profits on it, I would throw the plans for that invention in the trash.
I would rather make less and be taxed less, then to make more and have my income taxed down to making less, invention be damned.
Government intervention would stop needless blood shed.