Re-Evaluating Newt..

[SAT]

The crisis was not caused by Fannie and Freddie, was not caused by the Community Reinvestment Act, was not caused by Frank, Dodd, or any other of these right wing bugaboos.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits - BusinessWeek

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Fascism is not the government extending a bailout to a company and their union workers who are willing and eager to take that loan.

Both these right wing story lines are ridiculous.

 

[Foxfyre]

The crisis was not caused by Fannie and Freddie, was not caused by the Community Reinvestment Act, was not caused by Frank, Dodd, or any other of these right wing bugaboos.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits - BusinessWeek

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Fascism is not the government extending a bailout to a company and their union workers who are willing and eager to take that loan.

Both these right wing story lines are ridiculous.

Aaron Pressman is not without credentials, but he is a mostly leftist who would naturally defend Fannie, Freddie, and the Democrats. If you read on down in that Bloomberg blog, you'll see that nobody posting after him agreed with him. Nor do most qualified economists who have analyzed the phenomenon of the housing bubble burst of 2008. As it had barely started in September 2008, it is highly unlikely he had benefit of any of that careful analysis that occurred in the year following the crash of the housing bubble.

And virtually ALL the competent economists agree that it was the bundled loans, some good/lots of bad, that they foisted off on the banks who didn't see or didn't care about the risk because the economy was good and the futures values kept going up. Companies like AIG jumped on the gravy train to back the profitable derivatives that were snowballing like crazy.

And THEN an economic downturn--there will ALWAYS be an economic downturn following economic boom--and all those bad loans started going into default. People who have no investment--little or no down payment--in their homes, and who have a crappy credit rating to begin with, are too often prone to let property--cars, expensive furniture, and most especially houses--just go into repo when money gets tights. And as a glut of foreclosures on loans on thousands and then millions of homes began to accumulate, housing prices fell like a rock putting millions under water on their loans. And that caused more defaults from the bad risks.

And everything snowballed from there--the derivatives weren't all real estate and everything was affected. Fannie and Freddie who backed so much of all that were quickly out of money and awash in red ink and in danger of total collapse without a federal bailout. That created the ripple effect throughout the entire banking industry and sideways into other Wall Street firms deemed 'too big to fail'.

The whole thing could have been very much mitigated and perhaps even stopped in its tracks if Congress had heeded the first alarm bells when they were sounded at least two years before the collapse. But nothing was done. Dodd and Frank rushed to get in front of microphones to assure the world that Freddie and Fannie were just fine and there was nothing to worry about.

And the result we've been living with for the past three years.

And almost nothing has been done to fix the problems that caused the bubble and inevitable crash.

 

[SAT]

Fox, you don't get to ignore facts because you dislike the source.

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

The bundled loans were not bundled by FM or FM.

And everything snowballed from there--the derivatives weren't all real estate and everything was affected. Fannie and Freddie who backed so much of all that were quickly out of money and awash in red ink and in danger of total collapse without a federal bailout. That created the ripple effect throughout the entire banking industry and sideways into other Wall Street firms deemed 'too big to fail'.

The whole thing could have been very much mitigated and perhaps even stopped in its tracks if Congress had heeded the first alarm bells when they were sounded at least two years before the collapse. But nothing was done. Dodd and Frank rushed to get in front of microphones to assure the world that Freddie and Fannie were just fine and there was nothing to worry about.

Fannie and Freddie did not create these instruments.

Wall Street created them, and there was no arm twisting.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox, you don't get to ignore facts because you dislike the source.

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

The bundled loans were not bundled by FM or FM.

And everything snowballed from there--the derivatives weren't all real estate and everything was affected. Fannie and Freddie who backed so much of all that were quickly out of money and awash in red ink and in danger of total collapse without a federal bailout. That created the ripple effect throughout the entire banking industry and sideways into other Wall Street firms deemed 'too big to fail'.

The whole thing could have been very much mitigated and perhaps even stopped in its tracks if Congress had heeded the first alarm bells when they were sounded at least two years before the collapse. But nothing was done. Dodd and Frank rushed to get in front of microphones to assure the world that Freddie and Fannie were just fine and there was nothing to worry about.

Fannie and Freddie did not create these instruments.

Wall Street created them, and there was no arm twisting.

Well you'll have to show me more evidence than a comment made in a blog by Andrew Pressman before I won't believe the facts that I know. As I said, in September 2008, that you quoted, nobody had figured out what was happening for sure.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are goverment-sponsored enterprises or GSE's. They don't provide mortgages but rather buy mortgages from various institutions. Because they are willing to buy certain kinds of mortgages, the lending institutions that do provide mortgages are covered and, when Freddie and Fannie are willing to buy really bad loans, the banks are going to make them. It is too profitable not to. If Fannie and Freddie do maintain strict standards for the loans they buy, the banks don't make bad loans.

The GSEs are designed to buy the loans and then bundle them together to see into the market. So when an unacceptable number of the loans started defaulting, it was the financial institutions who bought them that took the worst of the fall out.

Further:

Fannie Mae is tax-exempt.

Fannie Mae are allowed to hold only 2.5% capital reserves (banks normally have to hold about 10%). This allows Fannie Mae much greater leverage.

Fannie Mae receives preferential low interest rates because of governmentguarantees. This allows Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to go head to head with other institutions, while having a significant competitive advantages.

Fannie Mae is exempt from SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] regulation. Thus Fanie bundled the mortgages, rated them AAA which they no way in hell qualified for, and enjoyed no requirement to be specific about what they were selling in the bundle.

And that is how so many toxic loans came to be sold across the free world. When the defaults started hitting the lending institutions hard, they couldn't tell who had good stuff and who didn't. So already hurt by defaults, the banks froze all assets and stopped lending altogether. A lot of people with the best credit in the world can't get a loan.

It still all traces back to irresponsible policy actually beginning with LBJ, solidified under Carter, percolating quietly through the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations, starting to snowball under Clinton and becoming unmanageable under Bush.

And those are the facts. You don't get to change them because they are inconvenient to your beliefs.

Read some Newt Gingrich commentary on the whole sordid mess and more of it will come clear.

 

[BenNatuf]

Today is the anniversary of the day that Newt shut down the government!

and look... Anniversery presents!!!!

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/11/14/rel18b.pdf

Mitt 24%
Newt 22%
Cain 14%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1114925.pdf

Newt 28%
Cain 25%
Mitt 18%

YAY!!!!!! presents!!!!

HOLY CRAP newt at 28%! What poll is that...it has cain at 25%, thats wild.

The one in the link. PPP(D)

 

[SAT]

Oh, people knew what was happening, they'd been warning about it for some time.

The bundles were created by Wall Street investors.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy

The Crisis of Credit Visualized

The Giant Pool of Money | This American Life

Fannie and Freddie bought bundles as investments. They did not create them.

 

[BenNatuf]

The crisis was not caused by Fannie and Freddie, was not caused by the Community Reinvestment Act, was not caused by Frank, Dodd, or any other of these right wing bugaboos.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits - BusinessWeek

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Fascism is not the government extending a bailout to a company and their union workers who are willing and eager to take that loan.

Both these right wing story lines are ridiculous.

Ok, you've shown you're capable of denial, but completely incapable of backing up your opinion with any sort of argument.. Sorry dumbass, but you saying "no it wasn't" and stamping your feet isn't proof of anything you claim. And what the fuck do i care about a blog link to a story written by a fannie appologist you post that you don't even understand? Strict standards of fannie and freddie? What a laugher!

Look, I know you dumbassed liberal morons who don't even reccognize the fascist policies you support want to blame everything on inept CEO's and greedy corporate executives (they are your jews), but the truth is what it is, the blame is wide, and the lions share is on the deadbeat liberal entitlement class that didn't pay thier fucking mortgages. Does it dawn on you that had these deadbeats paid their mortgages there would be no crisis and the securities they were bundled into would have matured and paid out like they were designed to do?

And once again since your denial seems to be impervious to this fact... there is no loan to GM, it was converted to common stock, and fuck the union scum, the only reason the fascist takeover of GM took place was to save that scum. They're still being paid off with my money. Guess what moron, if they went through a regular bankruptcy there would still be cars being built there, just not by the scumbag UAW.

 

[SAT]

Ok, you've shown you're capable of denial, but completely incapable of backing up your opinion with any sort of argument.. Sorry dumbass, but you saying "no it wasn't" and stamping your feet isn't proof of anything you claim. And what the fuck do i care about a blog link to a story written by a fannie appologist you post that you don't even understand? Strict standards of fannie and freddie? What a laugher!

That shoe would be on your foot. I've provided information to back up what I'm saying. You and Fox are just talking.

And once again since your denial seems to be impervious to this fact... there is no loan to GM, it was converted to common stock, and fuck the union scum, the only reason the fascist takeover of GM took place was to save that scum. They're still being paid off with my money. Guess what moron, if they went through a regular bankruptcy there would still be cars being built there, just not by the scumbag UAW.

Once again, you do not know what fascism is.

 

[BenNatuf]

Ok, you've shown you're capable of denial, but completely incapable of backing up your opinion with any sort of argument.. Sorry dumbass, but you saying "no it wasn't" and stamping your feet isn't proof of anything you claim. And what the fuck do i care about a blog link to a story written by a fannie appologist you post that you don't even understand? Strict standards of fannie and freddie? What a laugher!

That shoe would be on your foot. I've provided information to back up what I'm saying. You and Fox are just talking.

linking to a fannie appologist blog is not "providing information", it is merely providing the opinion of someone who gave yours to you.

Once again, you do not know what fascism is.

yes, I do, it's what you practice and you don't even know it.

 

[SAT]

[linking to a fannie appologist blog is not "providing information", it is merely providing the opinion of someone who gave yours to you.

Even that one link is more than you've done. But you've missed out on the fact that I've posted other links since.

Once again, you do not know what fascism is.

yes, I do, it's what you practice and you don't even know it.

Wrong again.

 

[JoeB131]

I would have to say, I've changed my mind a bit. I still think Newt's got some negatives, but compared to Romney and Cain, he's pretty awesome.

If this thing gets to IL, I'll vote for him.

 

[Toro]

I would have to say, I've changed my mind a bit. I still think Newt's got some negatives, but compared to Romney and Cain, he's pretty awesome.

If this thing gets to IL, I'll vote for him.

I have mixed feelings about Newt.

On the one hand, he's a lying, unethical, bomb-throwing sleezebag.

On the other, he gets a great deal of credit for improving the fiscal balance in the 1990s (it wasn't just Clinton who balanced the budget) which will be our most critical issue when the economy improves, he's extremely intelligent, and he will probably do at least some of the necessary things needed when the GOP wins everything in 2012. To me, a big drawback is his perpetuating the unreality that Medicare can continue as is, which diminishes the first point, because Medicare is the single biggest budgetary problem we will face.

I might support him. I'd rather support someone who is smart and unethical than someone who is dumb and ethical.

 

[Ava]

By far the best debater and most informed candidate and could easily kick Obama's ass in a debate...

Turned Clinton from a deficit spending President in a fortunate economy to a budget surplus and Democrat pro-sexual harassment hero..

Soo.. what's your beef with this Guy...?

Newt is awesome.

"If Republicans are looking for a nominee who will go on the attack against Obama, no other candidate has honed those lines quite the way Gingrich has. Just as he condemned the Democrats as the party of the “corrupt, liberal welfare state” two decades ago, he calls Obama a 21st century embodiment of those values.

“We have in the White House,” he said before the debate, “a legitimate, genuine, Saul Alinsky radical who believes in class warfare and bureaucratic socialism.” He paused as if to offer some context to soften that description. “I think it’s wrong,” he said, “but it is a legitimate belief system.” Then he turned back to the attack. “He’s also a disaster in practical terms, with 9 percent unemployment, $2 trillion in debt, a decaying foreign policy."

Can Gingrich seize an unexpected moment? - The Washington Post

 

[SAT]

That line kills with wingnuts, but the rest of the nation is going to be looking for more than wordy, inaccurate bomb throwing.

 

[Lumpy 1]

That line kills with wingnuts, but the rest of the nation is going to be looking for more than wordy, inaccurate bomb throwing.

I'd be interested to hear your honest review of Obama...after that statement...

 

[Cecilie1200]

By far the best debater and most informed candidate and could easily kick Obama's ass in a debate...

Turned Clinton from a deficit spending President in a fortunate economy to a budget surplus and Democrat pro-sexual harassment hero..

Soo.. what's your beef with this Guy...?

LOL. He is still the same asshole that he has always been.

Thats a positive in today's environment where common sense and the truth are in short supply. His bluntness is refreshing.

Like anyone gets very far in the political world without being at least a bit of an asshole. As much as people may hate to admit it, too much niceness is a drawback in a political leader. Look at Jimmy Carter: nicest man you'd ever want to meet, but an utterly hopeless doormat of a President.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"As
an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given The Nobel Peace Prize without
any accomplishments to his name, because America gave him the White House
based on the same
credentials."




~Newt
Gingrich

Oh that's brutally honest.

And dead accurate.

 

[oreo]

I would have to say, I've changed my mind a bit. I still think Newt's got some negatives, but compared to Romney and Cain, he's pretty awesome.

If this thing gets to IL, I'll vote for him.

I have mixed feelings about Newt.

On the one hand, he's a lying, unethical, bomb-throwing sleezebag.

On the other, he gets a great deal of credit for improving the fiscal balance in the 1990s (it wasn't just Clinton who balanced the budget) which will be our most critical issue when the economy improves, he's extremely intelligent, and he will probably do at least some of the necessary things needed when the GOP wins everything in 2012. To me, a big drawback is his perpetuating the unreality that Medicare can continue as is, which diminishes the first point, because Medicare is the single biggest budgetary problem we will face.

I might support him. I'd rather support someone who is smart and unethical than someone who is dumb and ethical.

Well what is it about a 17 year old personal extra marital affair--you can't get over---

There isn't a candidate out there that hasn't made mistakes--the only candidate that has admitted his past mistakes is Newt Gingrich--and that's the difference.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, then the challenge is for anyone who wants to defend Newt contrary to what I said can show all of us, in detail, what elements of his 'plans' conflict with the 3 themes I set out.

well for starters, newt is calling for more defense spending, he's calling for modernizing government systems and using the money that saves to revitalize the military.

I thought wing nuts told us that we didn't have money for anything, and everything that we spend is borrowed money. Why do you want to borrow more money from the Chinese to increase defense spending?

I believe he's planning to get it by butchering some of the left's sacred cow programs. Useful, effective, AND enormously entertaining for those of us who enjoy watching the left being reduced to frothing incoherence.

 

[Lumpy 1]

well for starters, newt is calling for more defense spending, he's calling for modernizing government systems and using the money that saves to revitalize the military.

I thought wing nuts told us that we didn't have money for anything, and everything that we spend is borrowed money. Why do you want to borrow more money from the Chinese to increase defense spending?

I believe he's planning to get it by butchering some of the left's sacred cow programs. Useful, effective, AND enormously entertaining for those of us who enjoy watching the left being reduced to frothing incoherence.

"frothing incoherence" .....

I'd rep you but...