Sanders just submitted college for all bill.

[Stephanie]

"You are flat out wrong.

After the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those bonds were backed by the US Treasury."

Bingo. AFTER, the fed govt took over freddie & fannie. Before these were plain and simply bad debt held by private banks. Now they are in the portfolio of the fed.and are still not guaranteed by the fed govt of the US. The fed is not a govt entity it is a private bank. The fed govt has no obligation to pay this stuff off. It is in the portfolio of a private concern, the fed. This bad debt has not suddenly become good debt.

You bet, banks that held bad mortgages or private label MBS based on bad mortgages lost hundreds of billions on those toxic securities. Banks that held Fannie and Freddie MBS didn't lose a dime in interest or principal."

Bingo again! Fannie and Freddie were private concerns, their bad debt was purchased by another private concern, namely the fed. The lack of losses is due to the fact that the fed purchased them. No one other than the fed would have in their right mind gone near them with out the ability to "print" the money to purchase them.

The Fed didn't buy those crappy mortgages or crappy MBS. They did buy the ones backed by the Treasury

Nonsense. The fed acquired massive amounts of this bad debt with "printed' money. The underlying bad debt is still there hidden in the balance sheet of the fed. Try auditing them some time..

"QE purchased high quality assets from willing sellers. Mostly non-banks".

Really? Based on what? High quality assets? Come on.

Think about it, TARP pumped some where around $440 billion into the system. Problem solved? That would put this "crisis" below that of the savings and loan debacle.

The fed has purchased 1.7 tr in debt held by private banks. Purchasing debt that is performing well from the banks
accomplishes what? According to you it's all good debt. Nonsense the fed "invented" money to clear the "toxic assets"of the big banks, period.

And again please tell me what constitutes toxic assets? and where did it go? if I understand you the moment the fed govt got involved all was well, toxic assets? what toxic assets? the fed loves you.

Buying up toxic assets was the only possible thing the fed govt could do. But they're not allowed, enter the fed..

MBS were never backed by the fed govt until freddie and fannie were taken over by the fed govt. You do realize that now they reside in the portfolio of the fed. The fed govt has no obligatory responsibility to honor those debts. None. The fed is a private concern, the fed govt has no responsibility what so ever.

age-Backed Securities, CMOs - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com

Check the link. FNMA & FMAC, all trading over 100 (par).

If they were trading above par what was the problem?

"The Fed wanted to boost money in the banking system and drop interest rates.
What else were they going to buy but Treasuries and guaranteed, liquid MBS"?"

QE purchased toxic assets from the banks.

"QE purchased high quality assets from willing sellers. Mostly non-banks."

High quality assets? I'll ask again. What were the toxic assets?
And by the way, up until the fed govt took control of fannie and freddie they were completely private institutions whose risk was no more guaranteed by the fed govt than your or my stock portfolio

Right, and after the government took over, they were guaranteed.
And after the takeover is when the Fed bought. I'm glad you finally see your error.

And some how you believe this makes bad debt good debt. Nothing changed except where the debt resides..

Bingo. AFTER, the fed govt took over freddie & fannie.

Bingo. The Fed bought no MBS before the government take over.

The fed is not a govt entity it is a private bank.

Wrong. The Fed is part of the government.

The fed govt has no obligation to pay this stuff off. It is in the portfolio of a private concern, the fed. This bad debt has not suddenly become good debt.

The federal government now backs this debt, of course it became good debt.

Bingo again! Fannie and Freddie were private concerns

Bingo. Before the government took over, they were private concerns. Not any more.

The lack of losses is due to the fact that the fed purchased them.

No, the lack of losses came before the Fed purchase, when the Treasury guaranteed them.

No one other than the fed would have in their right mind gone near them with out the ability to "print" the money to purchase them.

Ignored the WSJ link? LOL! Guaranteed bonds trading above par means lots of people want to purchase them.

The fed has purchased 1.7 tr in debt held by private banks. Purchasing debt that is performing well from the banks accomplishes what?

Adds $1.7 trillion in reserves to the system and lowers interest rates.

Nonsense the fed "invented" money to clear the "toxic assets"of the big banks, period.

Nonsense. The banks got stuck with their toxic assets.

And again please tell me what constitutes toxic assets?

Okay, if Merrill Lynch bought 10 mortgages and turned then into a private label (non-Fannie or Freddie) MBS and sold the MBS to Citigroup and the 10 homeowners defaulted on their loans, that could be a toxic asset.

and where did it go?

Citigroup worked the mortgages out with the homeowners and they began performing (paying the mortgage) again or Citigroup foreclosed on the homes and sold them for a loss.

Now if Fannie or Freddie bought 10 basically identical mortgages and the homeowners defaulted, the buyer of the now guaranteed MBS wouldn't know, or care, because he'd get the interest and principal payments with no interruption or impairment.

If the Fed bought this second, guaranteed MBS, they aren't taking a toxic asset off of anyone's hands, because the MBS is a high quality, guaranteed, trading above par, bond.

if I understand you the moment the fed govt got involved all was well, toxic assets? what toxic assets?

Yes, when someone with unlimited resources decides to guarantee something, it's no longer toxic.

And some how you believe this makes bad debt good debt. Nothing changed except where the debt resides..

No, all the guaranteed debt is now good debt, whether the Fed bought it or you did.

informative post there

 

[Arianrhod]

that must be the first bill Ole Bernie has submitted in all them years he's been sucking a living off taxpayers in Congress. and then look at what it is. shake down the American taxpayers for something he promises. what a freaking gig these snakes have going. It's like the JOKE is on us.

the Scary thing is many people falls for it, just they did with that bs Obama spewed all over us. I hope they like their new Transformation. living in the poorhouse can't be all bad eh?

Poor Stephanie - a victim of calculated ignorance!

Bernard Sanders

Sponsored legislation: 780
Co-sponsored legislation*: 5,416

*For the benefit of the calculatedly ignorant, that means working with other people in Congress from both sides of the aisle.


The scary thing is imagining how your grammar might have benefited from a college education.

 

[dblack]

The states should also make sure that all those college graduates get a decent job when they graduate, eh?

Interesting hypothesis. Make your case.

Well it would be approximately the same case justifying the idea that the states should provide an education, right?

I'm sure you've thought this out in detail. Explain how you think it would work.

No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

 

[Arianrhod]

The states should also make sure that all those college graduates get a decent job when they graduate, eh?

Interesting hypothesis. Make your case.

Well it would be approximately the same case justifying the idea that the states should provide an education, right?

I'm sure you've thought this out in detail. Explain how you think it would work.

No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

You do understand that state universities - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?

 

[dblack]

The states should also make sure that all those college graduates get a decent job when they graduate, eh?

Interesting hypothesis. Make your case.

Well it would be approximately the same case justifying the idea that the states should provide an education, right?

I'm sure you've thought this out in detail. Explain how you think it would work.

No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

You do understand that state universities - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?

Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

 

[Arianrhod]

Interesting hypothesis. Make your case.

Well it would be approximately the same case justifying the idea that the states should provide an education, right?

I'm sure you've thought this out in detail. Explain how you think it would work.

No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

You do understand that state universities - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?

Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities. Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?

Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.

 

[dblack]

Well it would be approximately the same case justifying the idea that the states should provide an education, right?

I'm sure you've thought this out in detail. Explain how you think it would work.

No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

You do understand that state universities - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?

Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities. Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?

Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.

Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

 

[Arianrhod]

I'm sure you've thought this out in detail. Explain how you think it would work.

No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

You do understand that state universities - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?

Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities. Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?

Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.

Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

What's your model? What country or countries that provide free education in order to make their students competitive also provide them with jobs (and by "provide," I assume you mean "guarantee them a job when they graduate," as opposed to "have a flourishing economy with a low unemployment rate") and food and housing (by which I assume you mean "give them a free house and free food")?

I mean, there must be a Real World country that does this outside of your vivid imagination, right?

 

[Onyx]

Two words: hedge funds.

Your fucking point?

If you looked at your own copy and paste, it isn't just hedge funds. It is ALL stock transactions.

 

[dblack]

No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

You do understand that state universities - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?

Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities. Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?

Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.

Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

What's your model? What country or countries that provide free education in order to make their students competitive also provide them with jobs (and by "provide," I assume you mean "guarantee them a job when they graduate," as opposed to "have a flourishing economy with a low unemployment rate") and food and housing (by which I assume you mean "give them a free house and free food")?

I mean, there must be a Real World country that does this outside of your vivid imagination, right?

I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

 

[Arianrhod]

Two words: hedge funds.

Your fucking point?

If you looked at your own copy and paste, it isn't just hedge funds. It is ALL stock transactions.

What's funny is the same people screaming "No bailout! Let 'em die!" RE: investment banks are now weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.

Or is it only because of that Big Scary Word "socialist" that y'all have your panties in a wad?

 

[Arianrhod]

You do understand that state universities - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?

Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities. Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?

Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.

Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

What's your model? What country or countries that provide free education in order to make their students competitive also provide them with jobs (and by "provide," I assume you mean "guarantee them a job when they graduate," as opposed to "have a flourishing economy with a low unemployment rate") and food and housing (by which I assume you mean "give them a free house and free food")?

I mean, there must be a Real World country that does this outside of your vivid imagination, right?

I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

I see. You're just going to keep repeating this.

Give me an example of a country that does that or I'll assume you're stuck in an EddieBeCrazy feedback loop.

 

[dblack]

Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities. Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?

Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.

Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

What's your model? What country or countries that provide free education in order to make their students competitive also provide them with jobs (and by "provide," I assume you mean "guarantee them a job when they graduate," as opposed to "have a flourishing economy with a low unemployment rate") and food and housing (by which I assume you mean "give them a free house and free food")?

I mean, there must be a Real World country that does this outside of your vivid imagination, right?

I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

I see. You're just going to keep repeating this.

Until you answer it, yes. There must be some reason that you're avoiding it.

It's a perfectly valid question, one that raises important issues regarding the purpose and scope of government power.

 

[Onyx]

Two words: hedge funds.

Your fucking point?

If you looked at your own copy and paste, it isn't just hedge funds. It is ALL stock transactions.

What's funny is the same people screaming "No bailout! Let 'em die!" RE: investment banks are now weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.

Or is it only because of that Big Scary Word "socialist" that y'all have your panties in a wad?

It is one thing to have a problem with the greedy side of wall street. This is not the greedy side of wallsteet. This is dealing with millions of Americans (lower, middle , upper ) and businesses (small, growing, big) that interact with the stock market.

Support Bernie Sanders if you want, but don't become his pawn in the process, just because he knows how to exploit your liberal sensibilities.

 

[Arianrhod]

I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities. Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?

Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.

Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

What's your model? What country or countries that provide free education in order to make their students competitive also provide them with jobs (and by "provide," I assume you mean "guarantee them a job when they graduate," as opposed to "have a flourishing economy with a low unemployment rate") and food and housing (by which I assume you mean "give them a free house and free food")?

I mean, there must be a Real World country that does this outside of your vivid imagination, right?

I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

I see. You're just going to keep repeating this.

Until you answer it, yes. There must be some reason that you're avoiding it.

It's a perfectly valid question, one that raises important issues regarding the purpose and scope of government power.

I'm avoiding it because it's idiotic, and because you can neither explain how (or why) it would work in theory, nor give an example outside of your "But what if the Easter Bunny really does lay eggs?" imagination where it's been realized.

Post it again.

 

[Arianrhod]

Two words: hedge funds.

Your fucking point?

If you looked at your own copy and paste, it isn't just hedge funds. It is ALL stock transactions.

What's funny is the same people screaming "No bailout! Let 'em die!" RE: investment banks are now weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.

Or is it only because of that Big Scary Word "socialist" that y'all have your panties in a wad?

It is one thing to have a problem with the greedy side of wall street. This is not the greedy side of wallsteet. This is dealing with millions of Americans (lower, middle , upper ) and businesses (small, growing, big) that interact with the stock market.

Support Bernie Sanders if you want, but don't become his pawn in the process, just because he knows how to exploit your liberal sensibilities.

Then the question is how they interact with the stock market, and whether the stock market is anything more or less than Vegas, only at a slower pace.

Y'all holler about insurers' role as middlemen in health provision (and rightfully so), but you defend a middleman (Wall Street) that can make or break a company of any size by rumor and innuendo.

Small investors should be able to put their money into Mom&Pop's Small Local Business without going through a middleman. And, guess what? They are.

 

[Stephanie]

Two words: hedge funds.

Your fucking point?

If you looked at your own copy and paste, it isn't just hedge funds. It is ALL stock transactions.

What's funny is the same people screaming "No bailout! Let 'em die!" RE: investment banks are now weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.

Or is it only because of that Big Scary Word "socialist" that y'all have your panties in a wad?

It is one thing to have a problem with the greedy side of wall street. This is not the greedy side of wallsteet. This is dealing with millions of Americans (lower, middle , upper ) and businesses (small, growing, big) that interact with the stock market.

Support Bernie Sanders if you want, but don't become his pawn in the process, just because he knows how to exploit your liberal sensibilities.

they can't seem to separate that when they JOIN the cult of the Democrat party. it's a little scary. look what Obama did to them.

 

[Arianrhod]

look what Obama did to them.

Taught us that a sentence begins with an upper-case letter? Some of us learned that on our own.

 

[dblack]

Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

What's your model? What country or countries that provide free education in order to make their students competitive also provide them with jobs (and by "provide," I assume you mean "guarantee them a job when they graduate," as opposed to "have a flourishing economy with a low unemployment rate") and food and housing (by which I assume you mean "give them a free house and free food")?

I mean, there must be a Real World country that does this outside of your vivid imagination, right?

I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?

I see. You're just going to keep repeating this.

Until you answer it, yes. There must be some reason that you're avoiding it.

It's a perfectly valid question, one that raises important issues regarding the purpose and scope of government power.

I'm avoiding it because it's idiotic, and because you can neither explain how (or why) it would work in theory, nor give an example outside of your "But what if the Easter Bunny really does lay eggs?" imagination where it's been realized.

Post it again.

So, you're conceding that you can't - or rather, don't want to - answer it?

You'd make a good politician. When confronted with something you don't want to talk about, you simply try to change the topic and dodge. It's chickenshit, but it's par for the course.

 

[il Tupe]

It has to start with costs. Administration has become bloated. Americans universities are not structured for free education. Cut all the VPs first.