|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Tucker
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Tucker
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| chickenwings |
| anyone know if he is going to be on today and maybe what time? |
|
|
| Tom from T.O. |
Is that asshole going to admit that Bush is the one who pushed subprime loans that started all this mess? I hope Fucker Carlson owns that egg on the face or he can fuck off and never come on the show again. If he doesn't admit that the subprime loans fiasco is due to Bush pushing subrpime loans by using a federal loophole, she should jack hammered in the asshole with a dildo and dunked into a tank of liquid ass.
http://www.gregpalast.com/elliot-spitzer-gets-nailed/ |
|
|
| tedeso |
Quote: Originally posted by Tom from T.O.
Is that asshole going to admit that Bush is the one who pushed subprime loans that started all this mess? I hope Fucker Carlson owns that egg on the face or he can fuck off and never come on the show again. If he doesn't admit that the subprime loans fiasco is due to Bush pushing subrpime loans by using a federal loophole, she should jack hammered in the asshole with a dildo and dunked into a tank of liquid ass.
http://www.gregpalast.com/elliot-spitzer-gets-nailed/ |
ITS the fault of the communtity reinvestment act of 1977 shit rolled downhill from then on |
|
|
| chickenwings |
| I'm pretty liberal. But I have always loved listening to Tucker. It was great to find him on BTLS |
|
|
| Epsilon |
| I lean liberal, too, but Tucker is pretty cool. He seems to be a centrist, and I think he gives equal consideration to both sides of the issues. |
|
|
| sillysod |
| swanson's inherantance haha.... |
|
|
| chickenwings |
| has he been on in the last two weeks? |
|
|
| Tom from T.O. |
Quote: Originally posted by tedeso
ITS the fault of the communtity reinvestment act of 1977 shit rolled downhill from then on |
No. Unfortunately there is alot of reading to get this one right. Note our good friend John McCain in amongst the "Keating five" in the S & L scandal.
And It All Started with Deregulation
There was a time, not too long ago, when Washington did regulate banks. The Depression triggered the creation of government bank regulations and agencies, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Bank System, Homeowners Loan Corporation, Fannie Mae, and the Federal Housing Administration, to protect consumers and expand homeownership. After World War II, until the late 1970s, the system work. The savings-and-loan industry was highly regulated by the federal government, with a mission to take people's deposits and then provide loans for the sole purpose of helping people buy homes to live in. Washington insured those loans through the FDIC, provided mortgage discounts through FHA and the Veterans Administration, created a secondary mortgage market to guarantee a steady flow of capital, and required S&Ls to make predictable 30-year fixed loans. The result was a steady increase in homeownership and few foreclosures.
In the 1970s, when community groups discovered that lenders and the FHA were engaged in systematic racial discrimination against minority consumers and neighborhoods -- a practice called "redlining" -- they mobilized and got Congress, led by Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire, to adopt the Community Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, which together have significantly reduced racial disparities in lending.
But by the early 1980s, the lending industry used its political clout to push back against government regulation. In 1980, Congress adopted the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act, which eliminated interest-rate caps and made sub-prime lending more feasible for lenders. The S&Ls balked at constraints on their ability to compete with conventional banks engaged in commercial lending. They got Congress -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- to change the rules, allowing S&Ls to begin a decade-long orgy of real estate speculation, mismanagement, and fraud. The poster child for this era was Charles Keating, who used his political connections and donations to turn a small Arizona S&L into a major real estate speculator, snaring five Senators (the so-called "Keating Five," including John McCain) into his web of corruption.
The deregulation of banking led to merger mania, with banks and S&Ls gobbling each other up and making loans to finance shopping malls, golf courses, office buildings, and condo projects that had no financial logic other than a quick-buck profit. When the dust settled in the late 1980s, hundreds of S&Ls and banks had gone under, billions of dollars of commercial loans were useless, and the federal government was left to bail out the depositors whose money the speculators had put at risk.
The stable neighborhood S&L soon became a thing of the past. Banks, insurance companies, credit card firms and other money-lenders were now part of a giant "financial services" industry, while Washington walked away from its responsibility to protect consumers with rules, regulations, and enforcement. Meanwhile, starting with Reagan, the federal government slashed funding for low-income housing, and allowed the FHA, once a key player helping working-class families purchase a home, to drift into irrelevancy.
Into this vacuum stepped banks, mortgage lenders, and scam artists, looking for ways to make big profits from consumers desperate for the American Dream of homeownership. They invented new "loan products" that put borrowers at risk. Thus was born the sub-prime market.
At the heart of the crisis are the conservative free market ideologists whose views increasingly influenced American politics since the 1980s, and who still dominate the Bush administration. They believe that government is always the problem, never the solution, and that regulation of private business is always bad. Lenders and brokers who fell outside of federal regulations made most of the sub-prime and predatory loans.
In 2000, Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve Board member, repeatedly warned about sub-prime mortgages and predatory lending, which he said "jeopardize the twin American dreams of owning a home and building wealth." He tried to get chairman Alan Greenspan to crack down on irrational sub-prime lending by increasing oversight, but his warnings fell on deaf ears, including those in Congress.
As Rep. Barney Frank wrote recently in The Boston Globe, the surge of sub-prime lending was a sort of "natural experiment" testing the theories of those who favor radical deregulation of financial markets. And the lessons, Frank said, are clear: "To the extent that the system did work, it is because of prudential regulation and oversight. Where it was absent, the result was tragedy."
Some political observers believe that the American mood is shifting, finally recognizing that the frenzy of deregulation that began in the 1980s has triggered economic chaos and declining living standards. If they needed proof, the foreclosure crisis is exhibit number one.
Those who profited handsomely from the sub-prime market and predatory lending, the mortgage bankers and brokers, are working overtime to protect their profits by lobbying in state capitals and in Washington, DC to keep government off their backs. The banking industry, of course, has repeatedly warned that any restrictions on their behavior will close needy people out of the home-buying market. Its lobbyists insisted that the Bush plan be completely voluntary.
This isn't surprising, considering who was at the negotiating table when the Bush administration, led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, forged the plan. The key players were the mortgage service companies (who collect the homeowner's monthly payments, or foreclose when they fall behind) and groups representing investors holding the mortgages, dominated by Wall Street banks. The Bush plan reflected both groups' calculation that -- for some loans -- they would do better temporarily freezing interest rates than foreclosing. Groups who represent consumers -- ACORN, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the Greenlining Institute, Neighborhood Housing Services, and the Center for Responsible Lending -- were not invited to the negotiation.
The best hope for real reform rests with a Democratic Party victory in November. And after an electoral win, it will require that Democrats make sure that these consumer groups are key participants in shaping legislation..
And wouldn't it be nice to hear the next president tell the American people that, "the era of unregulated so-called free-market banking greed and sleaze is over"?
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles...
ortgage_crisis |
|
|
| idiotkiller |
| Banking is hardly "unregulated". Your "reading" might include something a little more objective then "Mother Jones." |
|
|
| Tom from T.O. |
Quote: Originally posted by idiotkiller
Banking is hardly "unregulated". Your "reading" might include something a little more objective then "Mother Jones." |
Gerat comeback. If you have some relevant sources or actual information to ad, link it. Othwerwise, nigga pleez. |
|
|
| chickenwings |
Quote: Originally posted by Tom from T.O.
Gerat comeback. If you have some relevant sources or actual information to ad, link it. Othwerwise, nigga pleez. |
What does any of this have to do with if Tucker has been on or when he might be on. |
|
|
| idiotkiller |
Quote: Originally posted by Tom from T.O.
Gerat comeback. If you have some relevant sources or actual information to ad, link it. Othwerwise, nigga pleez. |
I'm not interested in posting a "gerat" comeback and I don't need to cut-and-paste to make an argument. When I went to school in Ontario, they still required us to compile sources from various perspectives when doing research on a topic.
Anyway, I don't need to cite a source to show that the banking sector is highly regulated. The banking regulations are clear and easily accessed from many sources. The infrastructure for effective oversight of the financial markets already exists. If you want to discuss the effectiveness and competence of the regulators or the role of political interference on these regulatory bodies then that's another story. The idea that the big, mean conservatives dismantled the regulatory regime in the US is a fairy tale spun by leftists eager to exploit this crisis and make bigger government more palatable. Fortunately Americans are not Canadians. |
|
|
| Stlstg |
Quote: Originally posted by Tom from T.O.
No. Unfortunately there is alot of reading to get this one right. Note our good friend John McCain in amongst the "Keating five" in the S & L scandal.
And It All Started with Deregulation
There was a time, not too long ago, when Washington did regulate banks. The Depression triggered the creation of government bank regulations and agencies, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Bank System, Homeowners Loan Corporation, Fannie Mae, and the Federal Housing Administration, to protect consumers and expand homeownership. After World War II, until the late 1970s, the system work. The savings-and-loan industry was highly regulated by the federal government, with a mission to take people's deposits and then provide loans for the sole purpose of helping people buy homes to live in. Washington insured those loans through the FDIC, provided mortgage discounts through FHA and the Veterans Administration, created a secondary mortgage market to guarantee a steady flow of capital, and required S&Ls to make predictable 30-year fixed loans. The result was a steady increase in homeownership and few foreclosures.
In the 1970s, when community groups discovered that lenders and the FHA were engaged in systematic racial discrimination against minority consumers and neighborhoods -- a practice called "redlining" -- they mobilized and got Congress, led by Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire, to adopt the Community Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, which together have significantly reduced racial disparities in lending.
But by the early 1980s, the lending industry used its political clout to push back against government regulation. In 1980, Congress adopted the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act, which eliminated interest-rate caps and made sub-prime lending more feasible for lenders. The S&Ls balked at constraints on their ability to compete with conventional banks engaged in commercial lending. They got Congress -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- to change the rules, allowing S&Ls to begin a decade-long orgy of real estate speculation, mismanagement, and fraud. The poster child for this era was Charles Keating, who used his political connections and donations to turn a small Arizona S&L into a major real estate speculator, snaring five Senators (the so-called "Keating Five," including John McCain) into his web of corruption.
The deregulation of banking led to merger mania, with banks and S&Ls gobbling each other up and making loans to finance shopping malls, golf courses, office buildings, and condo projects that had no financial logic other than a quick-buck profit. When the dust settled in the late 1980s, hundreds of S&Ls and banks had gone under, billions of dollars of commercial loans were useless, and the federal government was left to bail out the depositors whose money the speculators had put at risk.
The stable neighborhood S&L soon became a thing of the past. Banks, insurance companies, credit card firms and other money-lenders were now part of a giant "financial services" industry, while Washington walked away from its responsibility to protect consumers with rules, regulations, and enforcement. Meanwhile, starting with Reagan, the federal government slashed funding for low-income housing, and allowed the FHA, once a key player helping working-class families purchase a home, to drift into irrelevancy.
Into this vacuum stepped banks, mortgage lenders, and scam artists, looking for ways to make big profits from consumers desperate for the American Dream of homeownership. They invented new "loan products" that put borrowers at risk. Thus was born the sub-prime market.
At the heart of the crisis are the conservative free market ideologists whose views increasingly influenced American politics since the 1980s, and who still dominate the Bush administration. They believe that government is always the problem, never the solution, and that regulation of private business is always bad. Lenders and brokers who fell outside of federal regulations made most of the sub-prime and predatory loans.
In 2000, Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve Board member, repeatedly warned about sub-prime mortgages and predatory lending, which he said "jeopardize the twin American dreams of owning a home and building wealth." He tried to get chairman Alan Greenspan to crack down on irrational sub-prime lending by increasing oversight, but his warnings fell on deaf ears, including those in Congress.
As Rep. Barney Frank wrote recently in The Boston Globe, the surge of sub-prime lending was a sort of "natural experiment" testing the theories of those who favor radical deregulation of financial markets. And the lessons, Frank said, are clear: "To the extent that the system did work, it is because of prudential regulation and oversight. Where it was absent, the result was tragedy."
Some political observers believe that the American mood is shifting, finally recognizing that the frenzy of deregulation that began in the 1980s has triggered economic chaos and declining living standards. If they needed proof, the foreclosure crisis is exhibit number one.
Those who profited handsomely from the sub-prime market and predatory lending, the mortgage bankers and brokers, are working overtime to protect their profits by lobbying in state capitals and in Washington, DC to keep government off their backs. The banking industry, of course, has repeatedly warned that any restrictions on their behavior will close needy people out of the home-buying market. Its lobbyists insisted that the Bush plan be completely voluntary.
This isn't surprising, considering who was at the negotiating table when the Bush administration, led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, forged the plan. The key players were the mortgage service companies (who collect the homeowner's monthly payments, or foreclose when they fall behind) and groups representing investors holding the mortgages, dominated by Wall Street banks. The Bush plan reflected both groups' calculation that -- for some loans -- they would do better temporarily freezing interest rates than foreclosing. Groups who represent consumers -- ACORN, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the Greenlining Institute, Neighborhood Housing Services, and the Center for Responsible Lending -- were not invited to the negotiation.
The best hope for real reform rests with a Democratic Party victory in November. And after an electoral win, it will require that Democrats make sure that these consumer groups are key participants in shaping legislation..
And wouldn't it be nice to hear the next president tell the American people that, "the era of unregulated so-called free-market banking greed and sleaze is over"?
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles...
ortgage_crisis |
There is a lot of stupid shit on SFN, but this post just might be the stupidest. Even if the OP had a point, he doesn't even know what it is. To try and "blame" this whole thing on "deregulation" is not only ignorant, it's dishonest. The entire economy is complicated, and the causes of things, good or bad are complicated too. What exactly was "deregulated" that caused the whole thing? But wait, Obama and McCain told us it was greed that caused the whole thing. Which is it?
Banking is one of the most regulated industries in the country. What effect does every piece of US regulation have on the GLOBAL economy? Only someone who doesn't understand how things work would argue for more "regulation". That's easy. You see, if you don't know how something works, then you just say well, we need to fix it and then it will be better. Maybe, but in economics, maybe not. What kind of market was created by Freddie and Fannie Mac? If you don't know the answer to that question, and you think "deregulation" is the cause of the problem, then you don't understand the problem, and you should go back to watching American Idol or something. Trying to "blame" this issue on deregulation, is the same as blaming guns for gang violence. Yes, gang violence is a problem, but there is a bigger issue that banning every single gun in the world isn't going to solve.
Is regulation needed? Of course, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. But to try and blame this entire incident on deregulation is so short sighted and ignorant. There were many causes, but most assuredly, deregulation isn't even in the top 5. |
|
|
| chickenwings |
| WTF. How did asking If tucker had been on or when he might be turn into a partisan debate.. |
|
|
| Stlstg |
Quote: Originally posted by chickenwings
WTF. How did asking If tucker had been on or when he might be turn into a partisan debate.. |
SFN baby. :P
Sorry for the derail, but someone had to respond to that dude's nonsense. |
|
|
| asiaticoalunna |
| So is he supposed to be on today or not!? |
|
|
| Tom from T.O. |
Quote: Originally posted by Stlstg
There is a lot of stupid shit on SFN, but this post just might be the stupidest. Even if the OP had a point, he doesn't even know what it is. To try and "blame" this whole thing on "deregulation" is not only ignorant, it's dishonest. The entire economy is complicated, and the causes of things, good or bad are complicated too. What exactly was "deregulated" that caused the whole thing? But wait, Obama and McCain told us it was greed that caused the whole thing. Which is it?
Banking is one of the most regulated industries in the country. What effect does every piece of US regulation have on the GLOBAL economy? Only someone who doesn't understand how things work would argue for more "regulation". That's easy. You see, if you don't know how something works, then you just say well, we need to fix it and then it will be better. Maybe, but in economics, maybe not. What kind of market was created by Freddie and Fannie Mac? If you don't know the answer to that question, and you think "deregulation" is the cause of the problem, then you don't understand the problem, and you should go back to watching American Idol or something. Trying to "blame" this issue on deregulation, is the same as blaming guns for gang violence. Yes, gang violence is a problem, but there is a bigger issue that banning every single gun in the world isn't going to solve.
Is regulation needed? Of course, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. But to try and blame this entire incident on deregulation is so short sighted and ignorant. There were many causes, but most assuredly, deregulation isn't even in the top 5. |
Both you and the other poster just talk out of your asses, without providing any sources, and without addressing the main points made in the cut and pastes. So now I will join your ranks and instead of sourcing what I present I will talk out of my ass too. For years many American critics called for more regulation of the derivative markets but there was Greenspan, Mr. "Free economy, let the market take care of itself" and all other "free market" thinkers back to Ronald Reagan. Well, the S & L one trillion fiasco McCain had a hand in wasn't enough for you, now you have your final comeuppance on that ridiculous bullshit that many American critics have been attacking for a long time. Now, when the shit finally hits the fan and proves these guys wrong, you still will refuse to blame them because, well, you're a conservative. A conservative is basically a cheer leader for wealthy Americans that slowly gut the financial system at the average Joe's expense while the middle class conservatives kiss their ballsacks. It is sad to watch this empire get torn apart like this. The wealth of the average American will now be taking a mother lode hit, you will now be much poorer, for a long time to come. The "third generation" is finally spending away the empire.
And this one time I am glad to be Canadian, because there have been no bailouts of gigantic financial institutions in Canada at my expense. Why? Our institutions are more regulated than yours. There are no subprime loans issued in Canada as they would not meet CMHC guidelines. Period. |
|
|
| Tom from T.O. |
Quote: Originally posted by Stlstg
There were many causes, but most assuredly, deregulation isn't even in the top 5. |
OK, so what are the top five? And humor me, give sources like I did. |
|
|
| newshooter |
| How about blaming the fuckin idiots who took the loans. They should be blamed as much as anybody else. If they are not smart enough to know what they are signing then they shouldn't fuckin sign them. |
|
|
| Tom from T.O. |
Quote: Originally posted by newshooter
How about blaming the fuckin idiots who took the loans. They should be blamed as much as anybody else. If they are not smart enough to know what they are signing then they shouldn't fuckin sign them. |
That is kind of like blaming the victim in the case of fraud. Yes, they were stupid and illiterate to sign this shit but that is what fraudsters do, they prey on the stupid and illiterate. |
|
|
| idiotkiller |
Quote: Originally posted by Tom from T.O.
That is kind of like blaming the victim in the case of fraud. Yes, they were stupid and illiterate to sign this shit but that is what fraudsters do, they prey on the stupid and illiterate. |
Bullshit! They were greedy just like the fuckers that sold them the mortgage. |
|
|
| rozman |
During the first 6 plus years of the Bush administration we have had 9-11,we are fighting two wars
and still during this time we had the Dow Jones average up,inflation low and the economy was not great but not a problem.The last year plus the market was tanking,the economy was slowing and the housing industry was starting to show problems.Isn't it interesting that the problems might be traced back to the fact that the Democrats took over congress in 2006. To blame this all on the Bush administration is nonsense.Now the Democrats are poised to take over the whole government and will make us just like France is scary. |
|
|
| chickenwings |
Quote: Originally posted by rozman
During the first 6 plus years of the Bush administration we have had 9-11,we are fighting two wars
and still during this time we had the Dow Jones average up,inflation low and the economy was not great but not a problem.The last year plus the market was tanking,the economy was slowing and the housing industry was starting to show problems.Isn't it interesting that the problems might be traced back to the fact that the Democrats took over congress in 2006. To blame this all on the Bush administration is nonsense.Now the Democrats are poised to take over the whole government and will make us just like France is scary. |
That's not scary. Scary is not being able to see what the GOP did to this country. |
|
|
| g0rd0 |
Quote: Originally posted by chickenwings
That's not scary. Scary is not being able to see what the GOP did to this country. |
Scary is people who believe that in just the last 8 years only ONE president or ONE party is resposible for all our country's problems.
This snowball of a mess started long before GW and it wasn't pushed along by just ONE party.
Those people need to stop taking some fat hillbilly radio jock's political opinions as if he's speaking for the little guy.
His millions and his wasteful lifestyle will stay safe no matter who runs the country. |
|
|
| Tom from T.O. |
Quote: Originally posted by g0rd0
His millions and his wasteful lifestyle will stay safe no matter who runs the country. |
Clear Channel handed the FCC Bubba's head on a platter to appease the censorship Nazis. The only two DJ's that clear channel mentioned by name duirng the publicly televised hearings were Howard and Bubba. Bubba was ready to become a car salesman, his career was over and his money was depleted. He came back from the dead but just. Please know your facts before you speak out of your ass. |
|
|
| chickenwings |
Quote: Originally posted by g0rd0
Scary is people who believe that in just the last 8 years only ONE president or ONE party is resposible for all our country's problems.
This snowball of a mess started long before GW and it wasn't pushed along by just ONE party.
Those people need to stop taking some fat hillbilly radio jock's political opinions as if he's speaking for the little guy.
His millions and his wasteful lifestyle will stay safe no matter who runs the country. |
He speaks for me. |
|
|
| reevee69 |
Quote: Originally posted by Tom from T.O.
And this one time I am glad to be Canadian, because there have been no bailouts of gigantic financial institutions in Canada at my expense. Why? Our institutions are more regulated than yours. There are no subprime loans issued in Canada as they would not meet CMHC guidelines. Period. |
It's was never about deregulation. It did start with the CRA of 1977 which has since been revised several times. Basically the act forced banks to give a certain amount of loans to borrowers who may not normally qualifiy. These loans would be backed by both Fannie and Freddie. With a government guarantee, banks "ignored" normal underwriting criteria and the U.S. real estate market exploded with the availability of easy money. The Fed also helped by keeping the fed rate low. Several notables including John McCain warned that tighter regulations were needed to avoid a financial meltdown. This started as early as 1999. Fannie and Freddie were exempt from SOX regulations and had a major scandal a few years ago in which they cooked their books. Bonnie Frank along side other senators and house representatives were against any further regualtions of Freddie and Fannie. Once the real estate market started coming down, the shit hit the fan.
If the US had not passed the CRA of 1977 and instead followed CMHC type guidelines, then none of this would have happened. The intent of the CRA of 1977 was good, but the results have been disastrous.
Whose to blame? You name them. The Department of the Treasury (ie Bush)? Of course. They purposely kept the Fed Rate down to avoid a recession, instead of letting the economic cycle happen as it should.
How about Congress? Definetely. Bonnie Frank and the Dems fought tooth and nail not have Freddie and Fannie regulated and were adamant that the CRA of 1977 stay in place.
How about the Banks? Sure-They saw easy money with government backing of risky loans. Too bad they did not follow their own underwriting guidelines and keep the governement manadated risky loans to a minimum.
How about the borrowers themselves? Heck yeah. I live and Cali and I could not believe people who were making 60K per year buying 750K+ homes.
Now Canada is not out of the woods. Some Canadian banks in particular CIBC has written off billions of dollars in subprime loans, though Canada does have some strong economic fundamentals which should help in the long run.
Now that I got that out of the way. Fuck you and fuck socialist Canada. Fuck hockey. Fuck the Maple Leaf. Fuck moose. And by the way it's fucking ham not Canadian bacon. And what's up with fucking vinegar on french fries? :D |
|
|
| linuxchild |
Tom from T.O I hope your not from Toronto, because you'd be representing the same city as I and quite frankly you're a douche bag... Sorry bud.
The crisis going on now is much bigger then anyone of us could ever explain in this forum, trying to explain it just makes you an idiot and proves you know nothing about politics, economics, and business in general. |
|
|
| rozman |
| Democrats,Liberals on a whole want to solve problems buy throwing money at them. When they can't get their hands on money they go after the evil people that have it and then they take it away from them to spend as THEY see fit. In this case it's the evil rich Conservatives/ Republicans. Biden, on top of the money that Barack wants to spend on HIS pet projects wants to give every baby born in this country when they are elected $500.00. Where are they getting the money for this?.....Who cares ! they will just raise taxes.....Be careful people. |
|
|
|
|
|
