| Author | Post |
|---|
They are all the same
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 621 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 10th, 2008 01:18 am |
|
| Watch Dr. Zhivago. Good history lesson (with some license) regarding communism and especially socialism. If you can't absorb your history lesson by reading the actual events of the Czars and the Bolsheviks , this is at least entertaining and gives you the basics of what you are facing.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 10th, 2008 12:02 am |
|
Hot Flash wrote:
All 3 of you are so wrong, the government today is already a socialist government. What makes you think it is not when the pork is handed out, earmarks to States, of which Alaska got more earmarks than any other state in the Union! Palin said "thanks but no thanks on the Bridge to No Where", but she kept the money she got for it and spent it on other things. Social Security, medicare, and numerous other grants! It is all called socialism!
You are saying that I have "always lived off the system". Think again! You have no clue regarding the many people who need some help getting insurance because medical expenses are out of sight. You have no clue as to the many senior citizens who have to decide to buy medicine or food because they can't afford both. I could go on and on, but you people on here have a closed mind. Think of other people for once instead of just yourselves.
The tide changed and it is time to give the new administration a chance, because the previous administration could not handle the problems. 
Hot Flash, you are fractionally correct. There are aspects of our government that are inspired by socialism and were introduced by the socialist, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The most expensive aspects are social security and medicare. SS will be bust by 2040 unless something is done other than raising SS taxes and increasing the retirement age. Medicare is so expensive it is the largest item in the budget. Pork is not a part of socialism but rather congressional largesse.
The most insidious aspect of socislism is government control over the private lives of individuals. It comes in the form of mandates and outright regulation into things that should be left to individuals. Our system of government was founded upon individual liberties and government was created to protect those individual liberties.
It is truly unfortunate that there are many who cannot afford the things you mention. Our Founding Fathers knew that such situations would arise. Benjamin Franklin bragged to the French (The Way to Wealth) that poverty is non-existent in America and Alexis DeTocqueville (Democracy in America) marvelled that there were virtually no beggars as in Europe the reason being that those in need were cared for by their respective churches and through charities. Others had the determination to make their own way through hardships hardly ever imagined by people today.
The very idea of government forceably extracting the earned income of one only to be given to another goes against the very grain of the foundations of this country. No, we are not socialist as of yet. The worst may yet come.
|
cottoncandy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 10:32 pm |
|
Hot Flash wrote: ......the government today is already a socialist government. What makes you think it is not when the pork is handed out, earmarks to States......Social Security, medicare, and numerous other grants! It is all called socialism!
And who do you think hands out these earmarks and numerous other grants = predominantly the Democrats. You have just stated the case for the Republicans to fight that much harder to keep socialism from spreading further.
|
cottoncandy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 10:24 pm |
|
Hot Flash wrote:The tide changed and it is time to give the new administration a chance, because the previous administration could not handle the problems.
"Problems" that they inherited: if Clinton had taken care of Osama Bin Laden when he had the opportunity, the twin towers may still be standing and the >3,000 people who perished would still be alive. Bush has kept us safe since then. If the Democrats had not insisted that mortgages be given to those who could not afford to pay them, and Barney and Dodd had not sheltered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we may not have had the financial meltdown we had recently. Why can't the Democrats accept the blame where it lies instead of pushing it off onto the Republicans? Yes, the Republicans have failed, too, by abandoning their conservative principles and overspending during the first six years of Bush's presidency.
|
Smyrna Mom
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 43 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 08:41 pm |
|
| HF. I was not talking about people who legitimately need insurance. I was talking about scams such as insurance fraud. Let me think of an example. Say someone wanted to scam an insurance company with a water leak scam and made it look like they had a leak from their 1st floor into their basement or a disability insurance scam for some faked physical injury. These are the scams I talking about. These people live from one scam to the next and spend their time concocting these scams so they don't have to work. I know you understand what I am saying.
|
Hot Flash
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1369 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 08:10 pm |
|
Smyrna Mom wrote: Bixby wrote: cottoncandy wrote: Mendavor wrote: The only ones here who understand this is catbird and hotflash. Congradualtion to both of them as they are learning to embrace the new wave.
This statement is comical. CB and HF only repeat the montra; "understand", I don't think so.
What we have here are a few misguided souls who are willing to embrace socialism in Obama's plan to confiscate the wealth of others. That’s only part of it and these few may obviously think that they will be on the receiving end. In his infomercial a week prior to the election, he said, "Just because I want to spread the wealth around, they call me a socialist. The next thing you know, they will call me a communist because I shared my peanut butter sandwich in kindergarten!" If you look at it you will discover that Obama isn't proposing to "share" his sandwich. Instead, he's proposing to confiscate your sandwich, by force if necessary, and give it to someone he deems more worthy, under the assumption that you aren't charitable enough to share it yourself. Seek and ye shall find.
It is my guess that CB and HF embrace socialism becuase they have always lived off the system. I would venture a guess that any scheme that could be hatched to work scams in order to collect money would be right in line with their thinking i.e. disability and insurance. I think that they sound like the type of people who would do this.
All 3 of you are so wrong, the government today is already a socialist government. What makes you think it is not when the pork is handed out, earmarks to States, of which Alaska got more earmarks than any other state in the Union! Palin said "thanks but no thanks on the Bridge to No Where", but she kept the money she got for it and spent it on other things. Social Security, medicare, and numerous other grants! It is all called socialism!
You are saying that I have "always lived off the system". Think again! You have no clue regarding the many people who need some help getting insurance because medical expenses are out of sight. You have no clue as to the many senior citizens who have to decide to buy medicine or food because they can't afford both. I could go on and on, but you people on here have a closed mind. Think of other people for once instead of just yourselves.
The tide changed and it is time to give the new administration a chance, because the previous administration could not handle the problems.
|
Smyrna Mom
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 43 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 03:16 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: cottoncandy wrote: Mendavor wrote: The only ones here who understand this is catbird and hotflash. Congradualtion to both of them as they are learning to embrace the new wave.
This statement is comical. CB and HF only repeat the montra; "understand", I don't think so.
What we have here are a few misguided souls who are willing to embrace socialism in Obama's plan to confiscate the wealth of others. That’s only part of it and these few may obviously think that they will be on the receiving end. In his infomercial a week prior to the election, he said, "Just because I want to spread the wealth around, they call me a socialist. The next thing you know, they will call me a communist because I shared my peanut butter sandwich in kindergarten!" If you look at it you will discover that Obama isn't proposing to "share" his sandwich. Instead, he's proposing to confiscate your sandwich, by force if necessary, and give it to someone he deems more worthy, under the assumption that you aren't charitable enough to share it yourself. Seek and ye shall find.
It is my guess that CB and HF embrace socialism becuase they have always lived off the system. I would venture a guess that any scheme that could be hatched to work scams in order to collect money would be right in line with their thinking i.e. disability and insurance. I think that they sound like the type of people who would do this.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 02:23 pm |
|
cottoncandy wrote: Mendavor wrote: The only ones here who understand this is catbird and hotflash. Congradualtion to both of them as they are learning to embrace the new wave.
This statement is comical. CB and HF only repeat the montra; "understand", I don't think so.
What we have here are a few misguided souls who are willing to embrace socialism in Obama's plan to confiscate the wealth of others. That’s only part of it and these few may obviously think that they will be on the receiving end. In his infomercial a week prior to the election, he said, "Just because I want to spread the wealth around, they call me a socialist. The next thing you know, they will call me a communist because I shared my peanut butter sandwich in kindergarten!" If you look at it you will discover that Obama isn't proposing to "share" his sandwich. Instead, he's proposing to confiscate your sandwich, by force if necessary, and give it to someone he deems more worthy, under the assumption that you aren't charitable enough to share it yourself. Seek and ye shall find.
|
cottoncandy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 01:57 pm |
|
Mendavor wrote: The only ones here who understand this is catbird and hotflash. Congradualtion to both of them as they are learning to embrace the new wave.
This statement is comical. CB and HF only repeat the montra; "understand", I don't think so.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 05:56 am |
|
| UH, Mendy, the government was in control and that started the whole mess. You still don't seem to get how much your friends used Fannie Mae as a party piggy bank and blocked reforms of that organization. The other party had a share in being dumb enough to go along with the relaxation of banking rules but I see them more as being hopeless dumb rather than evil. We'll keep trying to weed out the duds and come back to show you the light of pure capitalism where banks and car companies get to bite the dust rather than run to Washington to latch on to the gummint teat.
|
Mendavor
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 298 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 05:18 am |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: Courtdog, a reasonable recitation of facts but the ommission of one issue needs to be corrected. That is how often the red flags were thrown and by whom during the 2001 -2007 time period. And who ignored them or simply pushed them away. I fault the Republicans , particulary Bush for not being more forceful in pursuing what they had to know was a tottering house of cards by 2006, but the exclusion of Frank and Dodd as prime change blockers should not be passed over.
The next little investigation you might want to undertake to get your sense of righteous rage flowing would be to see how this bi-partisan bail-out is being spent. You might want to look at a banking organization that got a 10 billion bailout and has slated 6.5 billion of that for executive bonuses. I find it hard to understand how anyone who ran their business into the ground with the 'leverged' approach you correctly described, should get anything other than a one way ticket out the door.
Oh, our Congress was going to watch over it 'like a hawk' to see this didn't happen. Think that will happen, given most of these executives are big contributors to one of the major political parties?
You make an excellent argument for why we should continue on the path to a successful socialist state. Had we had complete government control this would not have happened. The only ones here who understand this is catbird and hotflash. Congradualtion to both of them as they are learning to embrace the new wave.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 05:29 am |
|
Courtdog, a reasonable recitation of facts but the ommission of one issue needs to be corrected. That is how often the red flags were thrown and by whom during the 2001 -2007 time period. And who ignored them or simply pushed them away. I fault the Republicans , particulary Bush for not being more forceful in pursuing what they had to know was a tottering house of cards by 2006, but the exclusion of Frank and Dodd as prime change blockers should not be passed over.
The next little investigation you might want to undertake to get your sense of righteous rage flowing would be to see how this bi-partisan bail-out is being spent. You might want to look at a banking organization that got a 10 billion bailout and has slated 6.5 billion of that for executive bonuses. I find it hard to understand how anyone who ran their business into the ground with the 'leverged' approach you correctly described, should get anything other than a one way ticket out the door.
Oh, our Congress was going to watch over it 'like a hawk' to see this didn't happen. Think that will happen, given most of these executives are big contributors to one of the major political parties?
|
Catbird
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 66 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 04:15 am |
|
| COURTDOG, VERY GOOD PRESENTATION, SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN READ AND PONDER OVER FOR YOUR OWN SATISFACTION. I'AM SURE THAT A FEW KNOWN PREVIOUS BLOGGERS KNOWN AS THE "HIT SQUAD FOR WINGNUTS," WILL PICK YOUR POSTING APART AS YOU DID NOT INTERJECT ANY WHERE ABOUT IT IS THE DEMS FAULT, OR GOD FORBID THAT THE WINGNUTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN ON BOARD ALSO, EITHER WAY, YOU DID A GREAT JOB WITH YOUR POST THANKS, CAT'
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1841 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2008 08:44 pm |
|
leapforward2gethelp wrote: How the Brit's think we came to this. Entertaining
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=SwRFoxgEcHc
Ive seen these they are funny.
"What Ive learned is to be too big to fail"
|
leapforward2gethelp
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 85 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2008 08:26 pm |
|
How the Brit's think we came to this. Entertaining
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=SwRFoxgEcHc
|
Courtdog
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 30th, 2008 12:11 am |
|
Here is the events as factual as I can find. If you think this is false in any way, I invite you to please point them out rather than casting aspersions.
One of the root causes of this imbalance and misallocation in Ponzi Investment – Freddie and Fannie. Since the beginning of July we have seen the possibility raised of Fannie and Freddie, the “GSE”s that fund more than half of all mortgages at present in the United States, becoming insolvent. Former Fed Governor Bill Poole said recently that under fair accounting standards Freddie is insolvent now.
I have written for quite some time that under any rational application of accounting rules and understanding of leverage, it is not possible for these firms to operate as they are currently being run, going back to April of last year.(*) But irrespective of whether Freddie and Fannie are in fact bankrupt today, we need to examine exactly how all of this happened – who was responsible – and who’s been covering it up.
In 2001, after the 9/11 attacks on America, President Bush appeared on national television and urged Americans to, in effect, “go shopping.” We were, as you’re aware, in the middle of a large economic dislocation which, paradoxically, had
been brought upon us by an overreliance on Speculative Investment in our economy, otherwise known as the “Dot COM Bubble.” The bubble had burst in 2000, and was wreaking havoc among investor’s portfolios worldwide.
(*) http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/435-More-yeah,-I-know-on-The-Housing-Crisis.html
So together with Alan Greenspan, Congress and The Administration decided to blow an even bigger bubble, this time in the area of Ponzi Investment, in an attempt to prevent the full extent of the losses from the previous bubble from being realized.
It was a fatal error, and one that we now must pay for.
During the years from 2001 to 2007, Fannie and Freddie were allowed to grow their leverage to somewhere between 60:1 and 200:1, depending on how you count it. That is, they have somewhere between 50 cents and $1.60 worth of actual capital – money – behind every $100 of debt they either own or guarantee.
To put this in perspective, banks are supposed to have their leverage limited to somewhere between 8:1 and 12:1. Bear Stearns, which failed, was levered up at about 30:1, or more than double the recognized and expected “safe” level. Investment banks across the nation have feverishly been trying to take down their leverage ratios since the summer of last year, fearful that what happened to Bear Stearns could happen to them, as debt – most of it based in Ponzi Investment – continues to go bad.
Fannie and Freddie have actually increased their leverage, and The Government proposes to allow that to not only continue, but to expand. Further and far worse, Secy. Paulson proposes that he should be given carte-blanche to spend the public’s money to shore up the debt issued by these two institutions even though they are currently operating at a leverage level that is double that of the
riskiest of hedge funds, and even though in 2003 and 2004 they became mired in monstrous accounting scandals.
Together, these firms have about five trillion dollars worth of debt either owned or guaranteed by them. That is an amount that is equal to the entire public float of the US Federal Debt, and about half of all federal debt.
Who owns this debt?
It is scattered around the world, literally. The Chinese own some $375 billion of it. Japan has a bunch. Foreign Central Banks took much of the recent Freddie Mac debt offering this week. All in all, about $1.5 trillion of it is owned by foreign investors.
But here’s the rub – this debt has a “spread”, or premium, to US Treasuries. Historically that spread has been about 50 basis points, or ½ of 1%. Lately, it has been closer to 75 basis points, or ¾ of 1%. This doesn’t sound like much, but given the enormity of the debt involved, it is a huge amount of money.
This “spread” is present in all debt that has risk associated with it. And in fact every offering prospectus that goes with Fannie and Freddie debt has clearly stated that these securities are not backed by the US Federal Government and can, in fact, lose value. The total amount of “extra return” that has been earned by China, Japan, other foreign Central Banks and domestic investment houses such as Bill Gross’ PIMCO is about $50 billion annually. To put this in perspective, this is about ¼ of the cost of the Iraq war, each and every year. If we are to “bail out” these people by “backstopping” Freddie and Fannie, whether or not that backstop is ever used, then our Congress has in fact committed theft from all of us in the amount of that “excess coupon” over the last ten years. Some $500 billion in excess spread, which should not have been earned if in fact these bonds have no more risk than Treasuries, has been extracted from you and I and given to PIMCO, China, Japan and other foreign interests.
Bluntly, Sec. Paulson and Chmn. Bernanke are proposing that Congress STEAL approximately $2,000 from each and every American with this legislation and give it to China, Japan, and others on the date this legislation is signed, and in addition, give them the right to steal another $20,000 from each and every American should this debt go bad and require the exercise of that “backstop.”
July 22, 2008, Page 7
Yes, I said STEAL.
See, these investors bought this debt with the full knowledge that there was risk associated with the purchase. It says so right in black ink in the offering prospectus. They bought it anyway and now are demanding that Congress provide to them a backstop for their bad investment in an amount that could be as high as $20,000 per American.
That’s theft, pure and simple.
There are many people who claim that it will “totally destroy” the housing market if Fannie and Freddie collapse, and result in “chaos” in our markets. They are overlooking the fact that backstopping these institutions is far worse in that we cannot stop the unwinding of the Ponzi Investment bubble in housing, and attempts to do so risk impairment of the government’s ability to borrow and thus finance our way of life. Fannie and Freddie are often said to hold only “prime” mortgage paper that is “safe.” This, unfortunately, is simply not true.
Jamie Dimon, on the conference call regarding JP Morgan’s recent quarter, stated that “prime loans are performing terribly.”
But exactly what are “prime loans”?
“Prime” used to mean that you had 20% down in cash, took a 30 year fixed mortgage, and had a “back end” ratio, or total debt service to verified income, of no more than 36%. But during the years 2003-2007, and even today, this is no longer true. Countrywide Financial and IndyMac Bank, among others, are being investigated by the FBI for what has been described by many as “massive fraud.” Many of their loans were originated via fraudulent pretense - with cooked appraisals, falsely-stated incomes or some combination. They were then sold off to Freddie and Fannie as “prime” paper based on nothing more than a good FICO score via automated approval systems maintained by both companies. Neither of these firms has been buying only 80/20 36% DTI paper since the housing bubble began, and as the bubble proceeded the percentage of paper exposed to losses as a result of these crooked practices has dramatically increased.
This debt is in fact quite dangerous, in that in places where home values are declining back to their true values – somewhere at or under 3x average income in a given area for an average home – there is no way to avoid these loans from going severely underwater. If the borrower then loses his job or the truth of his income – that he could never afford the loan the first place – comes home to roost, these
homes will go to foreclosure and a real capital loss will be taken as the market value is nowhere near the total outstanding on the mortgage.
Exactly how did this happen?
Simple, really – Fannie and Freddie spent $200 million on lobbying efforts5 intended to prevent any sort of real regulation of their leverage and actions. That $200 million “bought off” any sort of meaningful regulatory oversight, and allowed them to not only expand their leverage to manifestly unsound levels, but in addition allowed them to buy mortgage paper claimed to be “prime” which in reality had a quality more akin to that of used toilet paper.
Now we’re being asked to “backstop” them because, it is claimed, if we don’t the economy will collapse.
5 http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080716/pl_politico/11781
July 22, 2008, Page 8
This is pure nonsense.
Money will always be available to lend to worthy borrowers.
What will be cut off is lending to people who should never have obtained a loan in the first place, and were “empowered” to buy a house only because the government “had the back” of the people who wrote the mortgages.
Yes, the cost of financing a home purchase will go up.
How far? The immediate impact will likely be a 200 basis point increase for qualified buyers, with a requirement to put 20% down and have no more than a 36% back end (DTI) ratio – just as it should be, and as it was for nearly fifty years prior to the housing bubble. Those people who want “more lenient terms” will pay more, of course. Over time the spread will relax to about 100 basis points, a quite-reasonable adjustment from where we have been for the last 10 years, assuming you truly want
(and qualify for) a “conforming” mortgage and not some kind of “gimmick loan.”
Standards and rates should go up; they have been held artificially low for nearly ten years, both in rate and in terms of qualifications, on purpose; excessively-loose monetary policy is the reason we are in this economic mess!
Many also believe that The Housing Bailout Bill is a “good thing” because it will expand.
(Denninger)
Last edited on Thu Oct 30th, 2008 12:28 am by Courtdog
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 348 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 07:03 pm |
|
Fannie & Freddie hearings
King of the congressional investigation Henry Waxman (D-CA) has vowed to drag the heads of government-sponsored fiascos Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee—he’s just going to wait until after the election to do it. House Republicans have been clamoring for Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to get to the bottom of just how Fannie and Freddie turned into such a colossal mess, but he has been reluctant to engage.
Waxman is stalling because he realizes that an investigation into the failed mortgage giants would seriously damage the Democrats. It was the Democrats who relaxed lending restrictions at both institutions, it was Democrats who for seven years repelled every Republican attempt to avert the coming disaster, and it was the Democrats’ relaxed lending restrictions that led to the collapse of the housing market and the ensuing economic crisis. But Waxman found a way out of this political pickle: simply postpone the Fannie and Freddie hearings until after the election. After all, they don’t want the public to know tidbits such as the fact that Barack Obama was the second largest recipient of political money from Fannie Mae, and that a number of sitting Demo representatives and senators were complicit in creating the financial crisis they now blame on the Republicans. Still, it is unlikely that inconvenient truths would be discovered by a Waxman hearing in any event.
|
They are all the same
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 621 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 11:02 pm |
|
According to this article http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/its-a-great-time-to-be-afraid.aspx
we, the taxpayers, were really scammed.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 06:16 pm |
|
Cotton Candy:
I have an excellent review of ACORN by Stanley Kurtz. It offers a complete investigation of Obama's connection thereto and discloses the ongoing investigations in over a dozen states for voter fraud, the least of their misdoings. Here is the link:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=
|
leapforward2gethelp
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 85 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 06:16 pm |
|
Here is a link that will give you an overview of ACORN
http://www.rottenacorn.com/downloads/060728_badSeed.pdf
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 06:09 pm |
|
cottoncandy wrote: Bixby: Have you come across any direct link to ACORN in this banking mess? I have heard some reports that Senator Obama gave a lot of money to ACORN so that they would force the banks to issue the sub-prime mortgages, which some believe are the direct cause of the failure of our banking system. No current direct link to this banking crisis but if you go back to the genesis of how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack came to be ground zero, you will find that during the days when the Community Reinvestment Act was legislated (fostered and pushed by Democrats) groups like ACORN (and its sub-groups) were used to pressure banks and lending institutions to comply with the granting of sub-prime loans to unqualified people by branding them as "racist" if standard banking practices were used. Those practices required identity and income verification and a means whereby a granyted loan would be repaid.
Barack Obama was an attorney and instructor in ACORN. This is where he formed a ten-year relationship with Saul Alinsky, an admitted communist and community agitator. Alinsky is the author of "Rules for Radicals", sometimes called "Handbook for Radicals." Those very tactics of "community organizing" (read agitating) are used today by the Obama campaign.
There is much more but in the quest for brevity, I'll find a link for you.
|
cottoncandy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 05:59 pm |
|
| Bixby: Have you come across any direct link to ACORN in this banking mess? I have heard some reports that Senator Obama gave a lot of money to ACORN so that they would force the banks to issue the sub-prime mortgages, which some believe are the direct cause of the failure of our banking system.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 05:32 pm |
|
ForeverSmyrna wrote: Would it be fair to say that neither party is innocent in this matter and that politicians in general can't be trusted because they are too busy scratching the backs of those who donate large amounts of money to their campaign and looking out for their own self-interest? Yes, it would be totally fair to say that. What you say is very accurate to a high degree. However, just as in certain crimes, there are degrees of culpability and in this case I would say that most of the culpability lay with certain powerful Democrats. I point not to editorials or various news media but rather to the public record. There is more than ample evidence in the Congressional Record, White House Memos, Senate Reports, and a host of committee hearings, all of whom make their transcripts available. I admit that it takes considerable time and research to dig up the truth but there have been posted a number of government and gfovernment related links so one can see for themselves just where fault settles.
|
ForeverSmyrna
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 124 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 04:59 pm |
|
| Would it be fair to say that neither party is innocent in this matter and that politicians in general can't be trusted because they are too busy scratching the backs of those who donate large amounts of money to their campaign and looking out for their own self-interest?
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 378 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 09:58 pm |
|
Read Investor’s Business Daily’s take on some of the root causes of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. To put Obama in along with the socialist Democrats will devastate this nation and you will never recognize it. The representative democratic republic will be just a memory.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
It is critical to show the linkage between Frank Raines and Barack Obama. Raines is at the very epicenter of this!
Read WorldNetDaily to learn about this connection. The American people will be appalled if they clearly understand that Raines is one of the very key figures that caused this crisis.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586
“In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover, attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.
All three Obama-related executives earned millions in compensation from Fannie Mae.
Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004; and Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003, according to author David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
All three have been involved in mortgage-related financial scandals.
In 1998, according to the Washington Post, Gorelick, as Fannie Mae vice chairman, received a bonus of $779,625, despite a scandal in which employees falsified signatures on accounting transactions to manipulate books to meet 1998 earning targets. The moves, in turn, triggered multi-million-dollar bonuses for top executives.
Gorelick was embroiled in another controversy over an alleged conflict of interest when a 1995 memo she authored as deputy attorney general surfaced while she was a member of the 9/11 commission.
The memo, which became known as the "Gorelick Wall," appeared to establish barriers that barred federal anti-terrorist criminal investigators from accessing various federal records and databases that may have assisted them in their criminal investigations.
According to the Associated Press, Raines and several other Fannie Mae top executives were ordered in a civil lawsuit to pay nearly $31.4 million for manipulating Fannie Mae earnings over a period of six years to trigger their massive bonuses.
Raines was also forced in the settlement to give up Fannie Mae stock options valued at $15.6 million.
Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged Freddie Mac had engaged in accounting fraud from 2000 to 2002, imposing a $50 million fine on the company and on four executives fines for amounts ranging from $65,000 to $250,000.
Raines currently advises Obama on housing policy.
Johnson was appointed to head Obama's vice presidential selection committee, until a controversy concerning an alleged $7 millions in questionable real estate loans he received on favorable terms from failed sub-prime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial surfaced and forced him to step down.
WND previously reported a panel chaired by Elena Kagan, dean and professor of law at Harvard Law School, speculated at the June two-day meeting of the American Constitution Society that Gorelick was a possible attorney general cabinet appointment if Obama should be elected president.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1841 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 07:39 pm |
|
In God We Trust wrote: Prayer for America -- George Washington
Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou Keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large. and finally, that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose of us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.
Grant our supplications we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen. - George Washington
Keep your religious crap on your own thread.
You want me to beleive the first General of this country who was in fact a trator to Britan said "cultivate a spirit of subordinationand obedience to government" Not bloody likley as that is what he was fighting against.
Save your dribble for the brain washed fools at your church
|
In God We Trust
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 66 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 06:44 pm |
|
Prayer for America -- George Washington
Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou Keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large. and finally, that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose of us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.
Grant our supplications we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen. - George Washington
|
no one else
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 404 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 05:03 pm |
|
Ben Franklin wrote: Lets not debase in arguing whos fault it is. Its both parties fault. No if ands or butts. Its also greedy little banksters fault. We need to vote out all incumbents and get a third party started. You are correct, BF, but the overwhelming evidence points to those Democrats who covered up the fact that their appointed pals cooked the books in order to distribute campaign money to those who "played ball" and to get themselves huge bonus' on monies that weren't there. The "greedy banksters" were forced to give loans to those who didn't have the income to pay them so that minorities can "share in the American dream" by owning a home. The Democrats also forced legislation to gramnt these loqans with no income verification and zero down mortgages. What bank in their right mind would do this willingly? And I agree tyhat we should vote out incumbents, but not all. Only those who allowed thios fiasco to come about, and those who supported the bailout. What good is it to vote them all out when the idiots and liberals will only elect the same type of socialist thinkers?
|
Someone
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Big Cave |
| Posts: | 1874 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 03:01 pm |
|
| Ben, we have a third party, I think even a forth, maybe a fifth. Yes our current two party system needs work that's for sure. Need to try and get folks away from I was born one party and I will die one party, kind of dumb.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1841 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 02:37 pm |
|
Lets not debase in arguing whos fault it is. Its both parties fault. No if ands or butts.
Its also greedy little banksters fault.
We need to vote out all incumbents and get a third party started.
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 823 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 03:18 am |
|
The crony pseudocapitalists at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been served federal grand jury subpoenas. Better late than never but it should go much further back like 2004:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said on Monday they were subpoenaed for documents as part of a federal grand jury investigations into their accounting. The U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York subpoenaed the two on Friday for documents related to accounting, disclosure and corporate governance dating from January 1, 2007 to the present.The Securities and Exchange Commission is also investigating these matters and directing the companies to preserve the documents…
Last edited on Mon Oct 6th, 2008 03:19 am by Jurisprudence
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 01:52 am |
|
From the Democrat's epistle of truth, The New York Times. Commentary follows.
April 3, 2008
Today, the New York Times criticized President Bush for failing to generate headlines for his visit to Novadebt counseling center in Freehold, N.J. to meet with mortgage counselors and discuss the housing market, asserting “the papers were awash with the news that Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania had endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president.” The “newspaper of record” further claims “Mr. Bush has sometimes seemed invisible during the housing and credit crunch.” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “In Economic Drama, Bush Is Largely Offstage,” The New York Times, 4/3/08)
The New York Times neglects to mention that it failed to send a reporter to cover the President’s housing event in Freehold, N.J. – a town inside its own circulation area.
The New York Times also criticizes President Bush for attending the NATO Summit this week, saying “now Mr. Bush is in Eastern Europe, one of eight foreign trips he is taking this year.”
President Bush is overseas on an important mission to advance critical issues at the NATO Summit, such as missile defense, increased troop presence in Afghanistan, and enlarging NATO’s membership to include new democracies in Europe.
The New York Times inaccurately accuses President Bush of being out of touch with the economy, while “Senate Democrats and Republicans were holed up in the Capitol, scrambling to produce a bill to help struggling homeowners.”
Since August 2007, President Bush has appeared at public events where he has discussed issues pertaining to the economy or housing at least 28 times. In the meantime, since the start of 2008, Congress has been on recess almost as many days as they have been in session.
President Bush first sent Congress an FHA Modernization bill in April 2006. Two years later, Congress still has not passed it. The President’s proposed bill would increase access to FHA-insured loans and expand FHA’s authority to price insurance fairly, with risk-based premiums.
In August 2007, President Bush launched FHASecure, which expands the FHA’s ability to offer refinancing to homeowners who have good credit but cannot afford current payments. Since FHASecure was announced, FHA has helped more than 140,000 families stay in their homes by refinancing about $20 billion worth of mortgages. By the year’s end, this program is expected to have helped a total of nearly 300,000 homeowners.
In October 2007, President Bush and his Administration helped facilitate the formation of the private-sector HOPE NOW Alliance – a group of lenders, investors, and mortgage counselors working to help Americans keep their homes.
In December 2007, President Bush signed the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, which helps homeowners avoid foreclosure by protecting them from higher taxes when they refinance. This creates a three-year window for homeowners to refinance and pay no Federal taxes on any debt forgiveness.
In January, the President called for an economic growth package and identified clear principles that would give a booster-shot to the economy and help Americans who may be hurt by an economic slowdown. President Bush recognized the initial signs of slowdown and acted decisively. Congress responded to the President’s call for action, and in February the President signed a bipartisan economic growth package that puts more than $150 billion back in the hands of families and businesses.
Also in January, President Bush created the Advisory Council on Financial Literacy, which brought together business experts and faith-based and non-profit organizations to develop recommendations to better educate Americans about matters pertaining to their finances and their future.
President Bush has continued to press Congress to pass responsible legislation to help struggling homeowners and criticized legislative proposals to bail out lenders.
The President has repeatedly called on Congress to pass legislation that helps at-risk homeowners by permitting cities and States to issue tax-exempt bonds for refinancing existing home loans and by increasing existing bond caps. Under current law, tax-exempt bonds are only for first-time homebuyers and cannot be issued for refinancing.
The President has repeatedly called on Congress to pass legislation to reform the regulation of Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Congress needs to pass legislation that strengthens the independent regulator of the GSEs and ensures their focus on the housing mission.
President Bush has repeatedly called on Congress to ensure the long-term health of our economy by making the tax relief that is now in place permanent. If Congress allows the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire, 116 million taxpayers will see their taxes go up by $1,800 on average, and we will see an end to many of the measures that have helped our economy grow – including the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, reductions in the marriage penalty, the expansion of the child tax credit, and reduced rates on regular income, capital gains, and dividends.
According to a study by John Lott and Kevin Hassett, “American newspapers tend to give more positive news coverage to the same economic news when Democrats are in the Presidency than for Republicans.” The study went on to say that “among the Associated Press and the top 10 papers, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Associated Press, and New York Times tend to be the least likely to report positive news during Republican administrations.” (John R. Lott and Kevin A. Hassett, “Is Newspaper Coverage Of Economic Events Politically Biased?” 10/19/04)
|
Idaho Observer
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 333 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 12:46 am |
|
The Soviet wing of the Democrat Party is strangely silent because of the overwhelming documentation that this banking crisis is of their own doing. Try as they may they keep coming up with the only mantra they know - "The Republicans were in control for the past 7 years" or "Its the Bush administration's failed policies of the past." The record is there but ignored by the left MSM. These headlines make them choke.
Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone... Dems Ignored Warnings
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.
Read Full Story at gatewaypundit.blogspot.com »
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 10:01 pm |
|
Those in charge of management overstated their assets and manipulated their earnings in order to gain for themselves greater bonus'. Simple enough. Criminal enough. Read.
The government’s planned takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, expected to be announced as early as this weekend, came together hurriedly after advisers poring over the companies’ books for the Treasury Department concluded that Freddie’s accounting methods had overstated its capital cushion, according to regulatory officials briefed on the matter. (NY Times 9/6/08)
Accusations of questionable accounting are not new for either company. Earlier this decade, both companies paid large fines and ousted their top executives after accounting scandals. Freddie Mac’s current chief executive and chairman, Richard F. Syron, joined the company in 2003 after the former managers revealed that they had manipulated earnings by almost $5 billion. The next year, Fannie Mae’s chief executive, Daniel H. Mudd, was promoted to the top spot after that company was accused of accounting errors totaling $6.3 billion. (Source: Fannie Mae Guaranteed Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Reporting by Stephen Labaton and Edmund L. Andrews in Washington, 9/6/08)
Levitt Says Fannie, Freddie `Really Cooked the Books' (Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Bloomberg Channel) Video Bloomberg
And if you go through the 2004 committee transcripts you can read the full testimony. Here are just some highlights:
Maxine Waters: Through nearly a dozen hearings, we were frankly trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines. [Raines would barely avoid prosecution for fraud.]
Gregory Meeks: … I’m just pissed off at OFHEO [the regulators trying to warn Congress of insolvency at the GSEs], because if it wasn’t for you, I don’t think we’d be here in the first place. … There’s been nothing that indicated that’s wrong with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac has come up on its own … The question that then comes up is the competence that your agency has with reference to deciding and regulating these GSEs.
Lacy Clay: This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.
Barney Frank: I don’t see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness problems.
Unfortunately for the Democrats at this hearing, Raines then doubled down and demanded that the SEC give a second opinion on his business practices. After an investigation, the SEC agreed with Falcon and demanded that Fannie Mae restate its earnings all the way back to 2001 — at which point Raines’ fraud got uncovered. OFHEO had been correct, and the Democrats in this committee meeting had done their level best to interfere with the regulator to cover up for Raines’ fraud.
The Democrats attacking the regulator here didn’t do so out of some deep conviction against government regulation. They wanted to keep the gravy train rolling on questionable mortgages in order to endear themselves to the working class, and didn’t mind smearing the OFHEO regulator as a racist in order to succeed. The
Republicans who wanted more oversight didn’t demand it as socialists looking for a government takeover of the financial sector, either, but because they saw the impending disaster looming for Fannie Mae.
Democrats distorted the market through the CRA and through Fannie and Freddie’s massive securitizing of bad debt, and then blocked regulators from doing their jobs. That’s the real story of this collapse.
In light of this evidence, there are those of you who will vote Democrat no matter what. You still believe Obama when he says that "this is all the fault of Bush's failed economic policies of the past." And guess what you'll do? You will return these same criminals to office. This is not over by a long shot.
Last edited on Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 10:06 pm by Bixby
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1841 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 06:37 pm |
|
Vindicator wrote: GreyPoupon wrote: The two-party system is not a true democracy.
The Insyder wrote: The people that seek office now in order to change our system from free-market capitalism to government socialism are using the tenets of the Constitution to invoke their aims and goals. George Washington warned us about this in his Fairwell Address. In one portion he warns against the party system.
"It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
It certainly is not but remember that the Founding Fathers warned about a true democracy. They abhorred it. They warned that it eventually devolves into a socialist system whereby 51% of the population can dictate too the other 49%. That's why they constructed into the government that it takes more than just a simple majority to pass. They engineered a 2/3 majority vote on issues and insisted on the separation of powers and made it somewhat difficult to change the Constitution on more than just a whim.
Just in case youve not notice there are 536 people who are deciding the future of this nation and youre future as well as your kids right now. Without so much as releasing to us what they are voting on or in other words IN SECRET
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 465 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 05:09 pm |
|
GreyPoupon wrote: The two-party system is not a true democracy.
The Insyder wrote: The people that seek office now in order to change our system from free-market capitalism to government socialism are using the tenets of the Constitution to invoke their aims and goals. George Washington warned us about this in his Fairwell Address. In one portion he warns against the party system.
"It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
It certainly is not but remember that the Founding Fathers warned about a true democracy. They abhorred it. They warned that it eventually devolves into a socialist system whereby 51% of the population can dictate too the other 49%. That's why they constructed into the government that it takes more than just a simple majority to pass. They engineered a 2/3 majority vote on issues and insisted on the separation of powers and made it somewhat difficult to change the Constitution on more than just a whim.
Last edited on Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 05:10 pm by Vindicator
|
GreyPoupon
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 178 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 04:51 pm |
|
The two-party system is not a true democracy.
The Insyder wrote: The people that seek office now in order to change our system from free-market capitalism to government socialism are using the tenets of the Constitution to invoke their aims and goals. George Washington warned us about this in his Fairwell Address. In one portion he warns against the party system.
"It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1841 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 03:05 pm |
|
What is really going on? Surely you dont beleive the liers in washington do you?
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6587.html
BAILOUT BILL PASSAGE
The Senate passed the Wall Street bailout bill, by a 3:1 majority. Some sweeteners like tax cuts and raising the limit to $250k on individual accounts for bank depositors helped. Some people might think that finally the banking system can at last receive some meaningful fixes. Call me a killjoy, but this will accomplish next to nothing as a banking system remedy. It is more a paper seal to Wall Street corruption than to ANY solution. If passed by the House, as is likely, it puts an epitaph on the American badge of legitimacy. A decade of fraud has been underwritten, sanctioned, and sealed. Even foreigners might smile at the new & improved bill. Their impaired bonds can participate in the redemption process. The only trouble is they might have to accept hot shiny USTreasury Bonds in return, of certain questionable value.
Still the bill must be viewed as a giant paper net to catch a giant locomotive train, one that derailed and then went over the mountainside cliff 500 meters above and is hurtling downward with acceleration. Gravity is a *****, and so is momentum! One should not doubt for a second that it will do much to halt the downward trajectory. One should remember that debt solutions accomplish nothing in providing remedy for debt abuse and damage inflicted by broken debt contraptions. Nothing is fixed, only accounts have been shifted and names have been changed. THE BANKING SYSTEM PROCEEDS ALONG ITS OWN CLEARLY DEFINED PATHOGENESIS, with great momentum and power, which no human devices can interrupt. The next shock will be why the bill has not fixed the banking system as Mini-Fuhrer Paulson claimed it would. The other next shock is why Wall Street will need another $700 billion within a year. The other other next shock is how much the AIG and Fannie Mae “INVESTMENTS” a la nationalization will each cost the USGovt conglomerate an unexpected extra $trillion. The bailout yesterday enables Wall Street executives to retire more comfortably, even as some seek asylum or face exile.
The irony of the lifted depositor insurance is that big financial conglomerates can now raid the private accounts worth over $100k now, with government coverage in the bankruptcy courts. The October Hat Trick Letter contains some multi-sided evidence of USFed open license to use subsidiary accounts toward the aid of liquidity strains. What constantly leaves me shaking my head is how intelligent people continue to attribute fair spirited motives to the system, when it resembles a crime syndicate more each year. The reason why it resembles one is that it IS a crime syndicate operating under the USGovt roof. There are three crime syndicates operating under the USGovt roof, the others identified in the report this month. Each has had a profound financial effect on the nation, as in killing its host
USDOLLAR AT RISK, USFED RATE CUTS SOON
◄ The USDollar is at extreme high risk. Since its bounce in July, behavior is erratic, volatile, and fully dependent upon central banks and market rule changes. The US$ money supply had been steadily growing at a 15% growth rate, give or take. Expect it to surpass 20% soon, and the US$ to reflect the debased currency from a flood of supply. The United States will be the first nation to cut interest rates, from desperation financially and economically. Other nations will eventually follow, but not right away. The effect few talk about regarding the mammoth nationalization and bailouts underway is the powerful jump in price inflation, along with currency debasement. Both are inevitable, sure to lift the gold price in powerful steps. The isolation of the US in geopolitical circles, the utter shock at failed leadership witnessed the world over, the widely perceived national bankruptcy will translate into shunned USTreasury auctions and outright divestment of US$-based assets. The only buyers will be central banks. The USDollar is at very very very high risk of serious declines, exactly like the US stock markets
|
|
| | |