Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 126

Thread: More Job Seekers Give Up

  1. #81
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: More Job Seekers Give Up

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    LOL!

    it's been two years since the united states senate even proposed a budget

    and kent conrad's not gonna deliver this year either

    the closest the party came was obama's 2012 blueprint published in february which actually RAISES deficit spending an obscene twenty percent

    that completely outta touch itinerary, however, was defeated on upper parliament's expensive blue carpet, NINETY SEVEN to ZERO, two weeks ago

    Dems lack budget leadership

    President's budget sinks, 97-0 - TheHill.com
    What does this have to do with the fact that Cain doesn't outline his HOWs? Like I said, the only repub presidential candidate I've seen HOWs from is Ron Paul.

  2. #82
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    Re: More Job Seekers Give Up

    Mortgage dreivatives, credit default swaps are products of the Credit Reinvestment Act that made giving out money to the wrong risks mandatory through making those kinds of loans contingent to the banks rating.

    The government regulated making bad loans, laundered them through Fannie May and Freddie Mac and then the finance market made a product that was risky at best. Yet, somehow....its entirely the fault of the financial and banking industry? Wake up, the financial bankruptcy protection was more or less a cover for Washington. When you tell banks no capital loans from the Fed, no aquisitions, no mergers unless your CRA rating is a certain amount; they will make bad loans as a percentage and write them off. The banks that went skyrocketing in value and tumbled the hardest didnt have the solvency to cover the loan amounts they were making, and they did it with goverment approval because of who the loans went to.

    Social engineering at best, a crapstorm waiting to happen at worst, a financial mess at present.

  3. #83
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: More Job Seekers Give Up

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    What does this have to do with the fact that Cain doesn't outline his HOWs?
    ask the president of the united states, his budget director, the majority leader of the senate, the budget chair, the finance chair...

    unless you'd prefer to consult some pizza guy

  4. #84
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: More Job Seekers Give Up

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Mortgage dreivatives, credit default swaps are products of the Credit Reinvestment Act that made giving out money to the wrong risks mandatory through making those kinds of loans contingent to the banks rating.
    Credit default swaps are financial products used to hedge against the risk of... default on a debt. They are not strictly products of the CRA, and have been used for the purposes of risk management for some time (since 1990).

    The government regulated making bad loans, laundered them through Fannie May and Freddie Mac and then the finance market made a product that was risky at best.
    Total bull****! As evident in the current lack of depository lending, nobody can force banks to lend if they do not want to.

    Yet, somehow....its entirely the fault of the financial and banking industry?
    Yep! Nobody forced AIG to take on counter-party risk for nearly every major financial institution in the developed world. Your argument is truly a fairy tale.

    Wake up, the financial bankruptcy protection was more or less a cover for Washington. When you tell banks no capital loans from the Fed, no aquisitions, no mergers unless your CRA rating is a certain amount; they will make bad loans as a percentage and write them off. The banks that went skyrocketing in value and tumbled the hardest didnt have the solvency to cover the loan amounts they were making, and they did it with goverment approval because of who the loans went to.

    Social engineering at best, a crapstorm waiting to happen at worst, a financial mess at present.
    You can take such nonsense to the conspiracy theory forum.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  5. #85
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537
    Last edited by The Prof; 06-04-11 at 07:28 PM.

  6. #86
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: More Job Seekers Give Up

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Mortgage dreivatives, credit default swaps are products of the Credit Reinvestment Act that made giving out money to the wrong risks mandatory through making those kinds of loans contingent to the banks rating.
    Come again? Mortgage derivatives and CDS are not products of the CRA and existed in some forms before its legislation. Furthermore, CDS are often issued entirely outside of the banking system. Furthermore, the majority of bad mortgages were made by banks not covered by the CRA. Wherever you get your information from, it's entirely wrong. Furthermore, bank ratings are not issued by the government nor does the government pay the rating agencies.

    The government regulated making bad loans, laundered them through Fannie May and Freddie Mac
    The majority of Fannie and Freddie purchases were high quality mortgages. The issue now is that the massive recession made formerly good mortgages bad. Foreclosures on nearby homes who's mortgages were not bought by Fannie/Freddie would cause the good mortgages home value to decline. Coupled with job loss by the mortgage payer and a good loan goes bad. Note that NOTHING about the original loan was bad.

    and then the finance market made a product that was risky at best.
    Come again? CDS only become problems when the issuer does not have the capital should the CDS be called in. AIG issued several hundred billion in CDS potential liability then it had in assets. The problem is not the CDS. It's the capital of the issuer. I think you should at least get a cursory understanding of the topics you write about before writing about them.

    Yet, somehow....its entirely the fault of the financial and banking industry?
    How is it not AIG's fault that it issued CDS with aggregate total liability far in excess of its capacity to meet even a fraction of its liabilities with its available capital?
    CDS is fundamentally insurance. If the insurance issuer does not have the capital to meet liabilities, that is its fault. Furthermore, the increase demand for securitized mortgages caused many NON-CRA banks to issue, chop up and sell mortgages. And you are ENTIRELY leaving out how Moody's basically committed one of the largest acts of fraud in history by rating securities it knew were total crap as investment grade.

    Wake up, the financial bankruptcy protection was more or less a cover for Washington. When you tell banks no capital loans from the Fed, no aquisitions, no mergers unless your CRA rating is a certain amount; they will make bad loans as a percentage and write them off. The banks that went skyrocketing in value and tumbled the hardest didnt have the solvency to cover the loan amounts they were making, and they did it with goverment approval because of who the loans went to.
    It helps to understand what you talk about before posting. Or you end up looking foolish. Like you do now
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #87
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: More Job Seekers Give Up

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    yesterday:
    Look at its holdings of bonds. Considering the decline in the dollar and the jonesy-ness of the Chinese manager, they could make a heck of a lot more in short term European holdings at the same time as slowing inflation in China. Greece hit a yield of 12% a few months back. China changing its T-bills doesn't really mean anything.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #88
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: More Job Seekers Give Up

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    It went south when the Democrats controlled Congress.
    Which implies that the conditions that caused it were caused by Democrats. Which would be extremely ignorant of history almost as a whole.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #89
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: More Job Seekers Give Up

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfoot 88 View Post
    Actually both parties need to be blamed, the Democrats moreso, but also the Republicans.

    We failed to lead with conservative policies when we had control and now we are paying, the Democrats just made it a lot worse.
    Actually it was a Republican Congress who got rid of the Glass-Steagle act. Not to mention systematically gutting obstacles to home ownership under Bush. While Clinton did gut the SEC, Bush pushed them towards making US business more competitive thereby dramatically reducing enforcement. If you believe self regulation works, tell me how that worked out with Madoff.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #90
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,076

    Re: More Job Seekers Give Up

    and you think that regulation by agency capture is better?


    ponzi schemes aren't an argument for or against the glass-steagle act. you know better.

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •