Rolling Stone Exposes Bain and Romney...

[Mac1958]

.

Ugh.

The meltdown was the inevitable result of decades of irresponsible behavior by politicians, unethical business people and consumers.

Are we really going to play this one out again?

.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, BOTH Parties were responsible, but the people most responsible were the ones who actually did it. Who made bad loans, bundled them and sold them off as investments, and continued to let the housing market run amok.

Both parties aren't at fault. The government forced them to make bad loans, moron, and then the government guaranteed those loans.

 

[JoeB131]

.

Ugh.

The meltdown was the inevitable result of decades of irresponsible behavior by politicians, unethical business people and consumers.

Are we really going to play this one out again?

.

You know what, I've heard the whole "it's the consumer's fault" argument, as though that excuses the politicians and business people.

But let's be honest. The consumer did exactly what he was programmed to do- consume. He performed his expected function.

I put more blame on the businesses selling people things they knew damned well they couldn't afford, and government for not reigning in the insanity. That was THEIR role, and they didn't perform it.

Was the guy who bought the McMansion with four more rooms than he really needed part of the problem? Um. Yeah. But when the shit hit the fan, the guy who bought the reasonably priced one bedroom condo that he carefully worked into his budget found his money getting sucked down the same sinkhole.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, BOTH Parties were responsible, but the people most responsible were the ones who actually did it. Who made bad loans, bundled them and sold them off as investments, and continued to let the housing market run amok.

Both parties aren't at fault. The government forced them to make bad loans, moron, and then the government guaranteed those loans.

1) The CRA didn't force anyone to make "bad loans". In fact, the CRA loans were actually more carefully regulated than the Sub-Prime market.

2) Both parties supported the CRA and home ownership. Bush-43 saw increased minority home ownership as one of the great accomplishments of his administration.

3) Regardless of what the government regulations were, these guys still had an obligation to be responsible. They weren't.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Ugh.

The meltdown was the inevitable result of decades of irresponsible behavior by politicians, unethical business people and consumers.

Are we really going to play this one out again?

.

You know what, I've heard the whole "it's the consumer's fault" argument, as though that excuses the politicians and business people.

But let's be honest. The consumer did exactly what he was programmed to do- consume. He performed his expected function.

I put more blame on the businesses selling people things they knew damned well they couldn't afford, and government for not reigning in the insanity. That was THEIR role, and they didn't perform it.

Was the guy who bought the McMansion with four more rooms than he really needed part of the problem? Um. Yeah. But when the shit hit the fan, the guy who bought the reasonably priced one bedroom condo that he carefully worked into his budget found his money getting sucked down the same sinkhole.

Is it really asking too much for a consumer to know what he or she can or can't afford, and behave accordingly? Or to be even remotely responsible for their own finances by saving a little bit? Or to not get a home loan they know damn well they can't afford when the teaser rate runs out?

If it is, then we're in worse trouble than I thought.

.

 

[bripat9643]

I've already pointed out your author's idiocy in a previous post. Do you really want to have the government prevent corporations from claiming interest payments as an business expense? That would bring the entire economy to a crashing halt.

Only Marxist imbeciles fail to understand that interest payments are legitimate business expenses, and they are definite no the same thing as making interest on mortgages deductible.

So you think Welfare for the Rich is good, then?

I'm just trying to clarify this..

But the way Romney most directly owes his success to the government is through the structure of the tax code. The entire business of leveraged buyouts wouldn't be possible without a provision in the federal code that allows companies like Bain to deduct the interest on the debt they use to acquire and loot their targets. This is the same universally beloved tax deduction you can use to write off your mortgage interest payments, so tampering with it is considered political suicide – it's been called the "third rail of tax reform." So the Romney who routinely rails against the national debt as some kind of child-killing "mortgage" is the same man who spent decades exploiting a tax deduction specifically designed for mortgage holders in order to bilk every dollar he could out of U.S. businesses before burning them to the ground.

minus that tax break, Romney's debt-based takeovers would have been unsustainably expensive. Before Lynn Turner became chief accountant of the SEC, where he reviewed filings on takeover deals, he crunched the numbers on leveraged buyouts as an accountant at a Big Four auditing firm. "In the majority of these deals," Turner says, "the tax deduction has a big enough impact on the bottom line that the takeover wouldn't work without it."

Thanks to the tax deduction, in other words, the government actually incentivizes the kind of leverage-based takeovers that Romney built his fortune on. Romney the businessman built his career on two things that Romney the candidate decries: massive debt and dumb federal giveaways. "I don't know what Romney would be doing but for debt and its tax-advantaged position in the tax code," says a prominent Wall Street lawyer, "but he wouldn't be fabulously wealthy."

 

[JoeB131]

.

Ugh.

The meltdown was the inevitable result of decades of irresponsible behavior by politicians, unethical business people and consumers.

Are we really going to play this one out again?

.

You know what, I've heard the whole "it's the consumer's fault" argument, as though that excuses the politicians and business people.

But let's be honest. The consumer did exactly what he was programmed to do- consume. He performed his expected function.

I put more blame on the businesses selling people things they knew damned well they couldn't afford, and government for not reigning in the insanity. That was THEIR role, and they didn't perform it.

Was the guy who bought the McMansion with four more rooms than he really needed part of the problem? Um. Yeah. But when the shit hit the fan, the guy who bought the reasonably priced one bedroom condo that he carefully worked into his budget found his money getting sucked down the same sinkhole.

Is it really asking too much for a consumer to know what he or she can or can't afford, and behave accordingly? Or to be even remotely responsible for their own finances by saving a little bit?

If it is, then we're in worse trouble than I thought.

.

YOu know what, I did all those things.

I bought the one-bedroom condo instead of a house, because I knew I didn't need more than that and that's what I could afford on my budget.

I factored in there would be at least one forced job change in there. But based on the two previous forced job changes I've had, I calculated I would only need about a year of reserves to make up for it.

What I didn't expect was a 20% income loss, and four years later, I still haven't really made up that much ground.

By way of comparison, in the 2001 recession, I initially took a 15% income loss, but by 2003, my income was back over what it was in 2001. I still haven't hit my old highs from the mid-oughts and don't expect to unless I do something radical.

So, no, I guess when I look at a Wall Street where they got big government bailouts, they are back to where they were, they are sitting on shitloads of money because they are trying to get a president who will appoint people who will ignore their malfeasence again, yeah, I think I ought to be a bit miffed about that.

I still really like my idea about show trials. Get a jury of 12 guys who lost their houses and jobs in 2008... that should be fun.

 

[JoeB131]

I've already pointed out your authors idiocy in a previous post. Do you really want to have the government prevent corporations from claiming interest payments as an business expense? That would bring the entire economy to a crashing halt.

Only Marxist imbeciles fail to understand that interest payments are legitimate business expenses, and they are definite no the same thing as making interest on mortgages deductible.

I think that there should be valid judgements on what is a valid business deduction, and what is someone abusing the system.

The economy did not come to a crashing halt because the government was preventing businesses from doing things. It came to a crashing halt because we let them do everything they wanted, and Chris Cox at the SEC had investigators who were watching internet porn instead of what these assholes were doing.

Again, by way of comparison... when Enron fell, a bunch of new regulations were put into place. Didn't bring business to a halt, it made it smarter and better.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, BOTH Parties were responsible, but the people most responsible were the ones who actually did it. Who made bad loans, bundled them and sold them off as investments, and continued to let the housing market run amok.

Both parties aren't at fault. The government forced them to make bad loans, moron, and then the government guaranteed those loans.

1) The CRA didn't force anyone to make "bad loans". In fact, the CRA loans were actually more carefully regulated than the Sub-Prime market.

2) Both parties supported the CRA and home ownership. Bush-43 saw increased minority home ownership as one of the great accomplishments of his administration.

3) Regardless of what the government regulations were, these guys still had an obligation to be responsible. They weren't.

What utter horseshit. CRA loans were not "more carefully regulated." In the first place, that statement is meaningless. What regulations are we talking about? CRA forced banks to make loans to people who had bad credit. End of story.

The Bush Administration tried several times to reign in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. The claim that both parties are responsible simply doesn't wash. It's Democrat propaganda.

When the government orders you to do something, you are not responsible for the disaster that follows. The government is.

 

[JoeB131]

What utter horseshit. CRA loans were not "more carefully regulated." In the first place, that statement is meaningless. What regulations are we talking about? CRA forced banks to make loans to people who had bad credit. End of story.

The Bush Administration tried several times to reign in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. The claim that both parties are responsible simply doesn't wash. It's Democrat propaganda.

When the government orders you to do something, you are not responsible for the disaster that follows. The government is.

NO, you actually are... but thanks for displaying your ignroance of the CRA.

THe CRA did not require ANYONE to make bad loans. The CRA simply said that banks couldn't "red-line", the practice of not making loans to people if they lived in certain neighborhoods if they otherwise qualified for loans.

It did not require the lenders to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back.

The lenders did that shit all on their own, usually because they realized that when people defaulted, they could collect all the interest they could squeeze out of them, and then STILL sell off the house to someone else at a profit. With property values increasing through the Oughts, it was easy. They probably ended up reselling the same house a couple of times.

Until everyone figured out houses were overvalued.

 

[zeke]

.

Ugh.

The meltdown was the inevitable result of decades of irresponsible behavior by politicians, unethical business people and consumers.

Are we really going to play this one out again?

.

You know what, I've heard the whole "it's the consumer's fault" argument, as though that excuses the politicians and business people.

But let's be honest. The consumer did exactly what he was programmed to do- consume. He performed his expected function.

I put more blame on the businesses selling people things they knew damned well they couldn't afford, and government for not reigning in the insanity. That was THEIR role, and they didn't perform it.

Was the guy who bought the McMansion with four more rooms than he really needed part of the problem? Um. Yeah. But when the shit hit the fan, the guy who bought the reasonably priced one bedroom condo that he carefully worked into his budget found his money getting sucked down the same sinkhole.

Is it really asking too much for a consumer to know what he or she can or can't afford, and behave accordingly? Or to be even remotely responsible for their own finances by saving a little bit? Or to not get a home loan they know damn well they can't afford when the teaser rate runs out?

If it is, then we're in worse trouble than I thought.

.

Evidently I am the only person on here that has been in sales for many years. And a loan officer for 20 years.

But you keep telling yourself that salesmen making big bucks couldn't handle any objections raised by a borrower about the product they were buying. It was so easy to assure these folks that by the time the "teaser" rate expired, why, they would be refinanced to a lower rate. Piece of cake. And sure you are borrowing 100% of the value of your home, but not to worry, with RE prices going up like they were, not a problem

Most people have no idea how most mortgage loans work. I used to tell clients that the reason mortgage loans were so complicated is so that they have to come see people like me. And it was the truth.

When the only type loan available was 30 or 15 year fixed rates, most people understood that. When all the weird sub prime loans started appearing on the market, confusion became the best friend of those selling mortgage money.

The sub prime market is where all the bullshit loans were made. Fannie and Freddie got sucked into the mess because they started buying MBS's (mortgage backed securities) trying to get some of those high yeild numbers. But they came to the game late and got burned buying nothing but junk. Franklin Raines should have gone to jail.

Tell yourself whatever makes you feel good. I was there. I saw it happeing. The dereg of the banking industry, allowing investment houses to make mortgage loans, is the reason we went down the road we did and it was all fueled by greed.

 

[Mac1958]

.

No one was "ordered" to take out 125% home equity loans, spend that money on big screen teevees and new cars, leaving some to pay off credit cards only to run them right back up.

No one was "ordered" to sign on the bottom line for mortgage loans with low teaser rates, knowing quite well that their payments would be exploding in X years, and not caring.

No one was "ordered" to engage in hyper-consumerism, buying every fucking thing in sight in some manic attempt to make themselves "happy" with inanimate objects.


Politicians fucked up by not creating and enforcing flexible regulatory programs that provided effective consumer protections. They also fucked up by pushing lenders to lower their standards to keep the gravy train rolling for a little while. They also fucked up by completely confusing more regulation with better regulation.

Many business people fucked up by letting their personal greed blind them to practices that were clearly unethical. By creating and pushing financial instruments that were essentially unintelligible to a vast majority of people. By grabbing every last dollar they could right now, right here.

And consumers fucked up by engaging in blind hyper-consumerism, by choosing not to engage in personal finance a 12-year old should understand.

God damn. This was and is a meltdown of massive proportions. It's global. It's far from over. It's a catastrophe of never-before-seen depth, breadth and complexity. And trying to simplistically blame one group or the other is just ridiculous to me. It accomplishes nothing.

.

 

[bripat9643]

I think that there should be valid judgements on what is a valid business deduction, and what is someone abusing the system.

Everything a business spends is "valid" business deduction, even if it's solely for the purpose of lining the pockets of its officers. They may go to jail for income tax evasion if they don't declare it on their 1040, but it's still a business deduction.

Having politicians decide that this expense or that expense is "valid" would drive the economy into the ground in a hurry.

The economy did not come to a crashing halt because the government was preventing businesses from doing things. It came to a crashing halt because we let them do everything they wanted, and Chris Cox at the SEC had investigators who were watching internet porn instead of what these assholes were doing.

Again, by way of comparison... when Enron fell, a bunch of new regulations were put into place. Didn't bring business to a halt, it made it smarter and better.

If you think Sarbanes-Oxley didn't have a negative impact on business, you're an ignoramus. In fact, it contributed significantly to the sub-prime mortgage debacle since it forced banks to value their mortgage portfolio according to the estimated market price of the home rather than the purchase price.

I don't understand why you continue to make a fool of yourself in this forum by constantly demonstrating your ignorance.

 

[Mac1958]

Tell yourself whatever makes you feel good. I was there. I saw it happeing.

I'm in finance, right now, I'm neck deep in it, and I know what happened. See above.

.

 

[JoeB131]

I think that there should be valid judgements on what is a valid business deduction, and what is someone abusing the system.

Everything a business spends is "valid" business deduction, even if it's solely for the purpose of lining the pockets of its officers. They may go to jail for income tax evasion if they don't declare it on their 1040, but it's still a business deduction.

Having politicians decide that this expense or that expense is "valid" would drive the economy into the ground in a hurry.

The economy did not come to a crashing halt because the government was preventing businesses from doing things. It came to a crashing halt because we let them do everything they wanted, and Chris Cox at the SEC had investigators who were watching internet porn instead of what these assholes were doing.

Again, by way of comparison... when Enron fell, a bunch of new regulations were put into place. Didn't bring business to a halt, it made it smarter and better.

If you think Sarbanes-Oxley didn't have a negative impact on business, you're an ignoramus. In fact, it contributed significantly to the sub-prime mortgage debacle since it forced banks to value their mortgage portfolio according to the estimated market price of the home rather than the purchase price.

I don't understand why you continue to make a fool of yourself in this forum by constantly demonstrating your ignorance.

You know what, I find it amusing that you get out here and defend people who've run the economy into a brick wall twice in a decade like they really know what they are doing.

I'm not worried about it "grinding to a halt", I'm worried about them slamming into a wall to make a quick buck while we are in the back seat.

 

[kaz]

Funny, Republicans have had the presidency for 20 of the last 32 years, the Senate for 18 of them and the House for 14 of those... And the Supreme Court has had a Republican Majority for that entire time.

So by your logic, they own at least half the blame for our woes....

If you were being honest.

Ooops, I'm a libertarian. I haven't voted Republican for President since 1988. Obama being a Marxist ends that trend. But actually I am honest ...

... and you're not. You're a Democrat who says you are a Republican and are finally voting for Democrats who have an actual Marxist as the candidate.

I think both parties are responsible for our woes, and largely because they BOTH can't stand up to the bullies on Wall Street.

People should have went to jail in 2008.

So you're sticking with politicians. How's that working out for you, Joe?

 

[JoeB131]

Funny, Republicans have had the presidency for 20 of the last 32 years, the Senate for 18 of them and the House for 14 of those... And the Supreme Court has had a Republican Majority for that entire time.

So by your logic, they own at least half the blame for our woes....

If you were being honest.

Ooops, I'm a libertarian. I haven't voted Republican for President since 1988. Obama being a Marxist ends that trend. But actually I am honest ...

... and you're not. You're a Democrat who says you are a Republican and are finally voting for Democrats who have an actual Marxist as the candidate.

Besides the fact you blurt out nonsense like "Marxist" and still expect to be taken seriously, I've made it VERY CLEAR why I'm voting against Romney.

I hate him and his cult. Period. I wish Obama was more centrist, but honestly, he isn't that far to the left. A lot of what he does is the same stuff Bush did, and the right had no problem with.

But the GOP nominated a Mormon, whom I consider a blood enemy.

[

I think both parties are responsible for our woes, and largely because they BOTH can't stand up to the bullies on Wall Street.

People should have went to jail in 2008.

So you're sticking with politicians. How's that working out for you, Joe?

Actually, I turst in myself... but if you don't think that regardless of which one of these guys win, when Wall Street says Jump, they'll both say, "How High".

 

[Toro]

No, actually, that sounds pretty sane to me. Hell, a lot of economists, like Krugman, were sounding the warning bells YEARS before the shit hit the fan. If you want to compare it to 9/11, (because, really, it wouldn't be a Toro Argument without a total off topic comparison to cover the fact he can't make his main point if his bonus depended on it) it would be like if the planes started off in Saudi Arabia, and took three years to get here, stating that was their intent all along.

You know very little about this. You hear snippets that support your worldview then make broad stereotypes that reinforces your preconceived notion.

Most economists were NOT sounding this warning bell. In fact, it is a serious criticism of the economics profession that most were clueless about the Housing Bubble. Krugman got on Meet the Press in 02 or 03 and said we should create a housing boom to ignite the economy. Greenspan in testimony said that no one came to the Fed to make a coherent argument about a housing bubble. I talk to economists, Joey, many economists. And I read a lot of economics literature. A lot. You don't. Most economists did not see this coming.

I also talk to Wall Street. I talk to the guys who made these structures, or at least sold these structured products. I talked to the housing analysts. Most people on Wall Street did not believe that a decline would happen in the housing market, let alone a crash. A few did, but most did not. I was at Warren Buffett's AGM in Omaha in 2007, and he didn't think the subprime market was a serious threat to the economy.

The idea that Wall Street knew about this is retarded, believed only by clueless fools who know nothing. You just have to look at all the firms that were wiped out - Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, Countrywide, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and so on. Some of the largest firms in the world, gone. Morgan Stanley was probably technically bankrupt and Goldman perhaps days away. Citigroup was finished. Tens of thousands of people employed in finance lost their jobs. Vast fortunes were lost. If everyone on Wall Street really knew that this was a bubble, then they would have protected their firms. They didn't. We needed an $800 billion bailout of the financial system. I was there. You were not. I saw the madness, and protected the people who depend on me with their savings, but most people didn't.

You see, Joey, I'll impart a little wisdom on you. You CAN'T have a bubble if everyone believes if it's a bubble. If everyone believes it's a bubble, no one will participate. The only way a bubble can occur is if most people believe it is not. And most of Wall Street did not.

Not that that matters a whit to you. Hate is a powerful emotion.

 

[JoeB131]

No, actually, that sounds pretty sane to me. Hell, a lot of economists, like Krugman, were sounding the warning bells YEARS before the shit hit the fan. If you want to compare it to 9/11, (because, really, it wouldn't be a Toro Argument without a total off topic comparison to cover the fact he can't make his main point if his bonus depended on it) it would be like if the planes started off in Saudi Arabia, and took three years to get here, stating that was their intent all along.

You know very little about this. You hear snippets that support your worldview then make broad stereotypes that reinforces your preconceived notion.

Most economists were NOT sounding this warning bell. In fact, it is a serious criticism of the economics profession that most were clueless about the Housing Bubble. Krugman got on Meet the Press in 02 or 03 and said we should create a housing boom to ignite the economy. Greenspan in testimony said that no one came to the Fed to make a coherent argument about a housing bubble. I talk to economists, Joey, many economists. And I read a lot of economics literature. A lot. You don't. Most economists did not see this coming.

I also talk to Wall Street. I talk to the guys who made these structures, or at least sold these structured products. I talked to the housing analysts. Most people on Wall Street did not believe that a decline would happen in the housing market, let alone a crash. A few did, but most did not. I was at Warren Buffett's AGM in Omaha in 2007, and he didn't think the subprime market was a serious threat to the economy.

The idea that Wall Street knew about this is retarded, believed only by clueless fools who know nothing. You just have to look at all the firms that were wiped out - Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, Countrywide, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and so on. Some of the largest firms in the world, gone. Morgan Stanley was probably technically bankrupt and Goldman perhaps days away. Citigroup was finished. Tens of thousands of people employed in finance lost their jobs. Vast fortunes were lost. If everyone on Wall Street really knew that this was a bubble, then they would have protected their firms. They didn't. We needed an $800 billion bailout of the financial system. I was there. You were not. I saw the madness, and protected the people who depend on me with their savings, but most people didn't.

You see, Joey, I'll impart a little wisdom on you. You CAN'T have a bubble if everyone believes if it's a bubble. If everyone believes it's a bubble, no one will participate. The only way a bubble can occur is if most people believe it is not. And most of Wall Street did not.

Not that that matters a whit to you. Hate is a powerful emotion.

"NOt my fault, why do you hate me... we only fucked up the American economy through our greed and incompetence!"

 

[Toro]

No, actually, that sounds pretty sane to me. Hell, a lot of economists, like Krugman, were sounding the warning bells YEARS before the shit hit the fan. If you want to compare it to 9/11, (because, really, it wouldn't be a Toro Argument without a total off topic comparison to cover the fact he can't make his main point if his bonus depended on it) it would be like if the planes started off in Saudi Arabia, and took three years to get here, stating that was their intent all along.

You know very little about this. You hear snippets that support your worldview then make broad stereotypes that reinforces your preconceived notion.

Most economists were NOT sounding this warning bell. In fact, it is a serious criticism of the economics profession that most were clueless about the Housing Bubble. Krugman got on Meet the Press in 02 or 03 and said we should create a housing boom to ignite the economy. Greenspan in testimony said that no one came to the Fed to make a coherent argument about a housing bubble. I talk to economists, Joey, many economists. And I read a lot of economics literature. A lot. You don't. Most economists did not see this coming.

I also talk to Wall Street. I talk to the guys who made these structures, or at least sold these structured products. I talked to the housing analysts. Most people on Wall Street did not believe that a decline would happen in the housing market, let alone a crash. A few did, but most did not. I was at Warren Buffett's AGM in Omaha in 2007, and he didn't think the subprime market was a serious threat to the economy.

The idea that Wall Street knew about this is retarded, believed only by clueless fools who know nothing. You just have to look at all the firms that were wiped out - Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, Countrywide, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and so on. Some of the largest firms in the world, gone. Morgan Stanley was probably technically bankrupt and Goldman perhaps days away. Citigroup was finished. Tens of thousands of people employed in finance lost their jobs. Vast fortunes were lost. If everyone on Wall Street really knew that this was a bubble, then they would have protected their firms. They didn't. We needed an $800 billion bailout of the financial system. I was there. You were not. I saw the madness, and protected the people who depend on me with their savings, but most people didn't.

You see, Joey, I'll impart a little wisdom on you. You CAN'T have a bubble if everyone believes if it's a bubble. If everyone believes it's a bubble, no one will participate. The only way a bubble can occur is if most people believe it is not. And most of Wall Street did not.

Not that that matters a whit to you. Hate is a powerful emotion.

"NOt my fault, why do you hate me... we only fucked up the American economy through our greed and incompetence!"

Like I said, it doesn't matter a whit to you. Hate is a powerful emotion. It's just how bigots are.