[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[Indeependent]

Bull shit. You must have had your head up your ass on the Street.
Bush went to Congress how many times stating that Fannie and Freddie needed to be restructured? The dot com bust had little to no effect on the home building that drove the economy for decades. Dot com stocks were not involved in the financial meltdown from bad loans that were over appraised with little to no oversight on borrowing. "If they breathe fund them" was the cry from mortgage brokers signing them up and AAA ratings on the bundled mortgages for investors.

First sign that I've won the debate...you falling back on an ad hominem.

Notice you claim nothing of actual Wall Street experience?
All you have is Rush Limbaugh.

And, BTW, Limbaugh was gushing about how much of a genius GW was in doing nothing BECAUSE the Sub-Prime Mortgages amounted to less than 3% of all outstanding Mortgage dollars.

But of course, according to irrational ideologues (are there any other kind?), that measly <3% caused a Global Crash.

What crash? All I saw was a market correction and a shit load of bailout money being handed out. You call that a crash?

750,000 laid off per month starting from Sep 2008.
CEOs and Directors being rewarded by GW and Obama.
Business Lines of Credit being suspended for almost a year.
Mortgage Lenders going out of business.

It appears to me that as long as the CEOs and Directors are OK, everything is fine.
It's OK, I know people like you.

As far as a correction, what do we have now for those who stayed in the market?
Global conditions have barely changes for the average person and yet the DOW is skyrocketing without bad loans being given out left and right.
Of course, the average person was never in the game and still isn't.

 

[itfitzme]

ROFL! Really? Who selected the CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?



Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are arms of the government and were used to implement a government policy of making loans available to unqualified borrowers.



The recession was precipitated by unqualified borrowers failing to make their payments on their mortgages. The flippers were nothing more than symptom of a problem created by bad government policy.



A government policy of forcing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers is what precipitated the problem. The flippers simply cashed in on a bad government policy. The flippers were a symptom, not a cause.



There is no free market in mortgages, so that claim is obviously false. Government set the terms on mortgages by fiat. banks simply complied with those regulations. Then the Obama fluffers blame the banks for doing what they were told to do.

Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle, and the Housing Market Crisis - Federal Reserve Bank of New York

The depth and breadth of your misperceptions of economics will require a lifetime to address. The single largest issue is the unstated assumptions amd paranoid delusions that drive your fantacies.

What does that have to do with your blatant lies? You were FOS when you stated "Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities." Admit it, and move on. They were GSEs nimrod, not private enterprise entities.

They are not government agencies. They were independent free market enterprises that were initially sponsered by the gov't.

Just because Chevy built your truck doesn't make them responsible for your driving it drunk. Nor does the investment by the government, in Chevy, make the gov't responsible for your driving drunk.

 

[itfitzme]

ROFL! Really? Who selected the CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?



Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are arms of the government and were used to implement a government policy of making loans available to unqualified borrowers.



The recession was precipitated by unqualified borrowers failing to make their payments on their mortgages. The flippers were nothing more than symptom of a problem created by bad government policy.



A government policy of forcing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers is what precipitated the problem. The flippers simply cashed in on a bad government policy. The flippers were a symptom, not a cause.



There is no free market in mortgages, so that claim is obviously false. Government set the terms on mortgages by fiat. banks simply complied with those regulations. Then the Obama fluffers blame the banks for doing what they were told to do.

Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle, and the Housing Market Crisis - Federal Reserve Bank of New York

The depth and breadth of your misperceptions of economics will require a lifetime to address. The single largest issue is the unstated assumptions amd paranoid delusions that drive your fantacies.

So we are supposed to believe some report by one of the institutions that caused the problem in the first place?

You might have some credibility of you ever took your lips off of Obama's dick.

And, boom, you demonstrate ignorance. Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.

BTW, you are a bit obsesed with dick. You are clearly a latent homosexual as no one else was talking about dick.

 

[bripat9643]

Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle, and the Housing Market Crisis - Federal Reserve Bank of New York

The depth and breadth of your misperceptions of economics will require a lifetime to address. The single largest issue is the unstated assumptions amd paranoid delusions that drive your fantacies.

What does that have to do with your blatant lies? You were FOS when you stated "Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities." Admit it, and move on. They were GSEs nimrod, not private enterprise entities.

They are not government agencies. They were independent free market enterprises that were initially sponsered by the gov't.

The government still runs them. It appoints their CEO and board of directors. Whose the boss?

Just because Chevy built your truck doesn't make them responsible for your driving it drunk. Nor does the investment by the government, in Chevy, make the gov't responsible for your driving drunk.

Chevy is responsible if the axle falls off, and yes, if the government is part owner, then it is partly responsible. However, government is entirely responsible in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It chooses the CEO and board of directors. Why would Congress hold hearings about Fannie Mae lending rules if it wasn't responsible?

 

[bripat9643]

Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle, and the Housing Market Crisis - Federal Reserve Bank of New York

The depth and breadth of your misperceptions of economics will require a lifetime to address. The single largest issue is the unstated assumptions amd paranoid delusions that drive your fantacies.

So we are supposed to believe some report by one of the institutions that caused the problem in the first place?

You might have some credibility of you ever took your lips off of Obama's dick.

And, boom, you demonstrate ignorance. Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.

You're the one ignoring the facts. Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.

Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute

Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.

Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises&#8217; deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.

The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​

 

[RKMBrown]

First sign that I've won the debate...you falling back on an ad hominem.

Notice you claim nothing of actual Wall Street experience?
All you have is Rush Limbaugh.

And, BTW, Limbaugh was gushing about how much of a genius GW was in doing nothing BECAUSE the Sub-Prime Mortgages amounted to less than 3% of all outstanding Mortgage dollars.

But of course, according to irrational ideologues (are there any other kind?), that measly <3% caused a Global Crash.

What crash? All I saw was a market correction and a shit load of bailout money being handed out. You call that a crash?

750,000 laid off per month starting from Sep 2008.
CEOs and Directors being rewarded by GW and Obama.
Business Lines of Credit being suspended for almost a year.
Mortgage Lenders going out of business.

It appears to me that as long as the CEOs and Directors are OK, everything is fine.
It's OK, I know people like you.

As far as a correction, what do we have now for those who stayed in the market?
Global conditions have barely changes for the average person and yet the DOW is skyrocketing without bad loans being given out left and right.
Of course, the average person was never in the game and still isn't.

>> 750,000 laid off per month starting from Sep 2008. The market correction and the layoffs & off-shoring of our labor are two independent issues.

You'd have a hard time proving either was the cause of the other.

>> It appears to me that as long as the CEOs and Directors are OK, everything is fine. It's OK, I know people like you.

Oh you do? My entire team was laid off at the start of the Obama administration. The jobs were moved to China. I was out of work for five minutes before I landed another job with another firm. My ex-firm offered me dozens of positions in dozens of countries around the world. I turned them down and accepted the layoff check.

Apparently, you don't know people like me.

>> As far as a correction, what do we have now for those who stayed in the market?

Tons of profit, the market rebounded in a big way across the country.

>> Global conditions have barely changes for the average person and yet the DOW is skyrocketing without bad loans being given out left and right. Of course, the average person was never in the game and still isn't.

Average for America was and still is well above global "average." For example, people who don't work at all in America live better than most of the Chinese laborers who do.

As for being in the "investment" game. Yeah I suppose not everyone decides to sock away a small % of their income for investing.

 

[PMZ]

So we are supposed to believe some report by one of the institutions that caused the problem in the first place?

You might have some credibility of you ever took your lips off of Obama's dick.

And, boom, you demonstrate ignorance. Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.

You're the one ignoring the facts. Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.

Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute

Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.

Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises’ deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.

The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​

That means that the private mortgage brokers screwed the investors that bought the derivatives, the unqualified people who bought a house that they couldn't afford, and us tax payers who had to bail Freddie and Fannie out.

You must be so proud.

 

[itfitzme]

What does that have to do with your blatant lies? You were FOS when you stated "Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities." Admit it, and move on. They were GSEs nimrod, not private enterprise entities.

They are not government agencies. They were independent free market enterprises that were initially sponsered by the gov't.

The government still runs them. It appoints their CEO and board of directors. Whose the boss?

Just because Chevy built your truck doesn't make them responsible for your driving it drunk. Nor does the investment by the government, in Chevy, make the gov't responsible for your driving drunk.

Chevy is responsible if the axle falls off, and yes, if the government is part owner, then it is partly responsible. However, government is entirely responsible in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It chooses the CEO and board of directors. Why would Congress hold hearings about Fannie Mae lending rules if it wasn't responsible?

Which would be fine if you could demonstrate that Freddie and Fannie were anything else but market followers. The point is that simply being sponsered demonstrates nothing. Your entire reasoning is flawed because it relies on a false premise driven by your warped assignment of cause and effect.

And, in fact, they were not any different than any other free market player.

Why would Congress hold hearings? Really? You think that holding a hearing is proof of something? The act of collecting data doesn't prove anything in anyone elses reality but yours. I get that you only collect data that will fit your predisposition. Oh, as Congress often does, based on a preconcieved notion of what they want to find. Real research, like the Fed paper on flippers, collects the data unbiasedly that draws a conclusion based on the facts.

 

[bripat9643]

And, boom, you demonstrate ignorance. Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.

You're the one ignoring the facts. Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.

Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute

Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.

Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises’ deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.

The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​

That means that the private mortgage brokers screwed the investors that bought the derivatives, the unqualified people who bought a house that they couldn't afford, and us tax payers who had to bail Freddie and Fannie out.

You must be so proud.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not "private" by any stretch of the imagination. And the unqualified people who bought a house they couldn't afford were not the ones who got screwed. The banks who the government forced to give them a mortgage were the ones who got screwed.

 

[PMZ]

Business doesn't invest in technology that consumers don't want. That kind is definitely "too risky." Private business developed the airplane, the automobile, the light bulb, telephone, television, radio, transistor, integrated circuit, cell phone, flat screens and countless other innovations, so the idea that technological innovation is "too risky for business" is obvious horseshit put out by goosestepping Obama fluffers.

Green energy is clearly a boondoggle. It's a technology consumers don't want. That's why these "investments" always go down in flames. It's definitely "too risky."

"Green energy is clearly a boondoggle."

Yeah, let's wait until fossil fuels are all gone then figure out alternatives in the cold and dark.

Wind and solar are never going to be adequate substitutes for coal and oil. That's the bottom line. When we absolutely have to go to a substitute, it will be nuclear. Shortly thereafter it will be fusion.

"Wind and solar are never going to be adequate substitutes for coal and oil."

Why must their be a single solution?
Wind and solar are fuel and waste free. It would be idiotic not to harvest that energy to the maximum extent.

 

[PMZ]

Where in all of that mumbo jumbo is the due diligence requirement that investors should do on their own before they invest their money?

It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.

a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.

ROFL! Really? Who selected the CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?



Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are arms of the government and were used to implement a government policy of making loans available to unqualified borrowers.



The recession was precipitated by unqualified borrowers failing to make their payments on their mortgages. The flippers were nothing more than symptom of a problem created by bad government policy.

d) The effects of flippers propogated up the money supply chain as MBSs tanked and CDS came due all at once.

A government policy of forcing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers is what precipitated the problem. The flippers simply cashed in on a bad government policy. The flippers were a symptom, not a cause.

The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out. The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.

There is no free market in mortgages, so that claim is obviously false. Government set the terms on mortgages by fiat. banks simply complied with those regulations. Then the Obama fluffers blame the banks for doing what they were told to do.

"A government policy of forcing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers is what precipitated the problem."

This the fundamental bullshit that Republican propaganda has sold to weak minds.

It's an unmitigated lie. Nothing changed the bank's responsibility for due diligence.

But it keeps the cult addicted to their daily feeding.

 

[itfitzme]

So we are supposed to believe some report by one of the institutions that caused the problem in the first place?

You might have some credibility of you ever took your lips off of Obama's dick.

And, boom, you demonstrate ignorance. Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.

You're the one ignoring the facts. Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.

Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute

Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.

Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises&#8217; deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.

The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​

Nobody said they didn't package some of the flippers loans. Like all free market enterprises, they acted in concert with the free market. Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crash.

Nor does Freddie and Fannie, as you claim, transfer the risk to the taxpayer. You are oblivious. The were simply a free market enterprise that got caught up in the free market bubble like all the free market lending banks did.

BTW; your Cato article is simple BS, drawing on the same faulty premise that has been demonstrated as wrong. It was specifically flippers that defaulted and took the market down, not subprime mortgages as a whole.

 

[bripat9643]

And, boom, you demonstrate ignorance. Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.

You're the one ignoring the facts. Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.

Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute

Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.

Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises’ deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.

The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​

Nobody said they didn't package some of the flippers loans. Like all free market enterprises, they acted in concert with the free market. Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crash.

Nor does Freddie and Fannie, as you claim, transfer the risk to the taxpayer. You are oblivious. The were simply a free market enterprise that got caught up in the free market bubble like all the free market lending banks did.

BTW; your Cato article is simple BS, drawing on the same faulty premise that has been demonstrated as wrong. It was specifically flippers that defaulted and took the market down, not subprime mortgages as a whole.

Oh puhleeze. The claim that only flipper loans went South is too stupid to even respond to. Even if that were true, the flipper loans were only made possible by government policy that forced banks to grant no-doc loans, no money down loans and other high risk lending vehicles.

Fannie and Freddie are not "simple free market enterprises." They are government institutions carrying out government policy masquerading as market enterprises. Loans guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie are generally viewed as risk proof by investors, so these loans were incorporated into mortgage backed securities and sold at a premium.

Government had its hand in this disaster at every point. There's no doubt that government caused the crises. Lenders and investors only followed the cues and regulations that government was giving off.

Government has been the cause of virtually every financial panic this country ever had. Why should anyone believe the resent one is an exception?

 

[PMZ]

Where in all of that mumbo jumbo is the due diligence requirement that investors should do on their own before they invest their money?

It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.

a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
b) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were, like all free market enterprises, price takers and market followers
c) The recession was precipitated by 1) Flippers, housing investors, that obtained low doc/no doc loans and walked away when thei ROI failed to mee expectations and 2) the deceleration of consumer credit as a whole.
d) The effects of flippers propogated up the money supply chain as MBSs tanked and CDS came due all at once.

The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out. The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.

You and PMZ have GOT to learn never to let FACTS get in the way of ideology.

Where's your evidence that I don't?

 

[PMZ]

You're the one ignoring the facts. Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.

Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute

Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.

Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises’ deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.

The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​

Nobody said they didn't package some of the flippers loans. Like all free market enterprises, they acted in concert with the free market. Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crash.

Nor does Freddie and Fannie, as you claim, transfer the risk to the taxpayer. You are oblivious. The were simply a free market enterprise that got caught up in the free market bubble like all the free market lending banks did.

BTW; your Cato article is simple BS, drawing on the same faulty premise that has been demonstrated as wrong. It was specifically flippers that defaulted and took the market down, not subprime mortgages as a whole.

Oh puhleeze. The claim that only flipper loans went South is too stupid to even respond to. Even if that were true, the flipper loans were only made possible by government policy that forced banks to grant no-doc loans, no money down loans and other high risk lending vehicles.

Fannie and Freddie are not "simple free market enterprises." They are government institutions carrying out government policy masquerading as market enterprises. Loans guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie are generally viewed as risk proof by investors, so these loans were incorporated into mortgage backed securities and sold at a premium.

Government had its hand in this disaster at every point. There's no doubt that government caused the crises. Lenders and investors only followed the cues and regulations that government was giving off.

Government has been the cause of virtually every financial panic this country ever had. Why should anyone believe the resent one is an exception?

"government policy that forced banks to grant no-doc loans, no money down loans and other high risk lending vehicles."

Can't wait to see this documented.

 

[bripat9643]

It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.

a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
b) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were, like all free market enterprises, price takers and market followers
c) The recession was precipitated by 1) Flippers, housing investors, that obtained low doc/no doc loans and walked away when thei ROI failed to mee expectations and 2) the deceleration of consumer credit as a whole.
d) The effects of flippers propogated up the money supply chain as MBSs tanked and CDS came due all at once.

The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out. The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.

You and PMZ have GOT to learn never to let FACTS get in the way of ideology.

Where's your evidence that I don't?

This thread contains almost 300 pages of such evidence.

 

[PMZ]

And, boom, you demonstrate ignorance. Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.

You're the one ignoring the facts. Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.

Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute

Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.

Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises’ deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.

The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​

Nobody said they didn't package some of the flippers loans. Like all free market enterprises, they acted in concert with the free market. Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crash.

Nor does Freddie and Fannie, as you claim, transfer the risk to the taxpayer. You are oblivious. The were simply a free market enterprise that got caught up in the free market bubble like all the free market lending banks did.

BTW; your Cato article is simple BS, drawing on the same faulty premise that has been demonstrated as wrong. It was specifically flippers that defaulted and took the market down, not subprime mortgages as a whole.

The fundamental workings of propaganda is that the people who all got it from the common source reinforce it to each other.

 

[johnwk]

Companies are profit motivated to screw people. They don't need any help from government. In fact, typically, government is in the way of the screwing.

Government is in the way of the screwing? The truth is, Obama works in concert with his pals who are running a green energy money laundering operation which is plundering our national treasury.

Obama has been instrumental in taxing hard working people's earned wages living in our nation&#8217;s inner cities, and then transfer their earned wages to his pals who start up phony green energy businesses whose primary object is to get rich by plundering our national treasury?

Let us take a look at the list who have profited off working people&#8216;s earned wages being transferred to them by Obama:


&#8226; Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants &#8211; Bankrupt in October 2011

&#8226; Ener1 (parent company of EnerDel): Received $118.5 million in federal loan guarantees &#8212; Bankrupt in January 2012 &#8211; has since exited bankruptcy

&#8226; Evergreen Solar: Received $58 million in MA loan guarantees (an undisclosed portion sourced from federal ARRA block grant) &#8212; Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt

&#8226; Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit &#8212; Bankrupt in August 2011

&#8226; SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009 &#8212; Bankrupt in August 2011

&#8226; Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust) &#8211; Bankrupt in early 2009

&#8226; Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009 &#8212; Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010

&#8226; Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011 &#8211; Bankrupt in April 2012
Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:

&#8226; A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants &#8212; Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs

&#8226; Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA &#8212; Laid off 2/3 of work force

&#8226; First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees &#8212; Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired

&#8226; Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees &#8212; Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland

&#8226; Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009 &#8212; Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity

&#8226; Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 &#8212; Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value

&#8226; Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees &#8212; Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall

&#8226; Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012 &#8212; ½ work force laid off

&#8226; BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012 &#8211; loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsource&#8217;s solar power purchase would have fallen through.

see:Green Energy&#8217;s Bankruptcy Blackout

BTW, 80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors.
And you have the nerve to tell us Government is in the way of the screwing?

JWK

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama&#8217;s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

Technology development is a risky business. Too risky for business. When all is said and done, and the pioneers have taken the risk, there will be huge winners and many losers. But the winners will repower the world. And save the world from the dregs of fossil fuels.

Thank you for posting your platitudes but they do not address or justify the unconstitutionality of taxing the working person&#8217;s earned wages and transferring them to a privileged group of businesses to develop &#8220;green energy&#8221; technology. As a matter of fact our founders were very specific in our federal government&#8217;s role in the advancement of science and promoting valuable inventions as pointed out by Representative John Page speaking before the House of Representatives:

"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.&#8221; Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792

Why do you support such tyranny which robs the working person earned wage?

JWK

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama&#8217;s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

 

[bripat9643]

You're the one ignoring the facts. Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.

Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute

Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.

Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises’ deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.

The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​

Nobody said they didn't package some of the flippers loans. Like all free market enterprises, they acted in concert with the free market. Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crash.

Nor does Freddie and Fannie, as you claim, transfer the risk to the taxpayer. You are oblivious. The were simply a free market enterprise that got caught up in the free market bubble like all the free market lending banks did.

BTW; your Cato article is simple BS, drawing on the same faulty premise that has been demonstrated as wrong. It was specifically flippers that defaulted and took the market down, not subprime mortgages as a whole.

The fundamental workings of propaganda is that the people who all got it from the common source reinforce it to each other.

Yep, and you and idgitme are regurgitating self-serving Federal Reserve propaganda.

 

[PMZ]

Government is in the way of the screwing? The truth is, Obama works in concert with his pals who are running a green energy money laundering operation which is plundering our national treasury.

Obama has been instrumental in taxing hard working people's earned wages living in our nation’s inner cities, and then transfer their earned wages to his pals who start up phony green energy businesses whose primary object is to get rich by plundering our national treasury?

Let us take a look at the list who have profited off working people‘s earned wages being transferred to them by Obama:


• Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants – Bankrupt in October 2011

• Ener1 (parent company of EnerDel): Received $118.5 million in federal loan guarantees — Bankrupt in January 2012 – has since exited bankruptcy

• Evergreen Solar: Received $58 million in MA loan guarantees (an undisclosed portion sourced from federal ARRA block grant) — Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt

• Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit — Bankrupt in August 2011

• SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Bankrupt in August 2011

• Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust) – Bankrupt in early 2009

• Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009 — Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010

• Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011 – Bankrupt in April 2012
Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:

• A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants — Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs

• Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA — Laid off 2/3 of work force

• First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees — Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired

• Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees — Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland

• Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009 — Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity

• Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value

• Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees — Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall

• Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012 — ½ work force laid off

• BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012 – loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsource’s solar power purchase would have fallen through.

see:Green Energy’s Bankruptcy Blackout

BTW, 80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors.
And you have the nerve to tell us Government is in the way of the screwing?

JWK

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

Technology development is a risky business. Too risky for business. When all is said and done, and the pioneers have taken the risk, there will be huge winners and many losers. But the winners will repower the world. And save the world from the dregs of fossil fuels.

Thank you for posting your platitudes but they do not address or justify the unconstitutionality of taxing the working person’s earned wages and transferring them to a privileged group of businesses to develop “green energy” technology. As a matter of fact our founders were very specific in our federal government’s role in the advancement of science and promoting valuable inventions as pointed out by Representative John Page speaking before the House of Representatives:

"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792

Why do you support such tyranny which robs the working person earned wage?

JWK

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

Our Founders had no knowledge of green energy.