Well they broke it so they would know how to fix it. Oh who I'm I kidding we all know what their answer will be, more government. Don't worry if we run out of money we can always print more.

submitter: When it comes to solving the subprime mortgage mess, Democratic Presidential candidates surround themselves with experts

TFA: A top economic adviser to Republican candidate John McCain, former senator Phil Gramm, also has ties to the subprime problems.

Gramm is vice chairman of UBS, which recently disclosed $19 billion in losses on investments in subprime mortgages.

Your bias is showing.

do any of the know jack kemp?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Well they broke it so they would know how to fix it. Oh who I'm I kidding we all know what their answer will be, more government. Don't worry if we run out of money we can always print more.

they broke it?

i'm still amazed by the ability of republicans to delude themselves. you could walk into a room with george bush standing over a broken cookie jar with chocolate chips smeared across his lips, and still believe him when he told you that a democrat did it.

burndtdan: i'm still amazed by the ability of republicans to delude themselves. you could walk into a room with george bush standing over a broken cookie jar with chocolate chips smeared across his lips, and still believe him when he told you that a democrat did it.

So it's Bush fault? Please explain how Bush forced all those banks to produce shiat loans and force those idiots to sign them.

burndtdan: they broke it?

TFA: Clinton's campaign manager, Maggie Williams, earned at least $175,000 serving from 2000-07 on the board of Long Island-based Delta Financial, which filed for bankruptcy last year after a history of high-cost loans to low-income borrowers, according to public records.

Obama's national finance chairwoman, Penny Pritzker, was chairwoman of the board of a Chicago-area bank in 1993 when it adopted a subprime business strategy that regulators say ultimately led it to collapse in 2001.

Guess that's just bullshiat eh?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: burndtdan: i'm still amazed by the ability of republicans to delude themselves. you could walk into a room with george bush standing over a broken cookie jar with chocolate chips smeared across his lips, and still believe him when he told you that a democrat did it.

So it's Bush fault? Please explain how Bush forced all those banks to produce shiat loans and force those idiots to sign them.

How about by deregulating the mortgage industry to allow these types of loans?

I love that the photos of the two women in question show them looking all grumpytrousers.

cameroncrazy1984: The Stealth Hippopotamus: burndtdan: i'm still amazed by the ability of republicans to delude themselves. you could walk into a room with george bush standing over a broken cookie jar with chocolate chips smeared across his lips, and still believe him when he told you that a democrat did it.

So it's Bush fault? Please explain how Bush forced all those banks to produce shiat loans and force those idiots to sign them.

How about by deregulating the mortgage industry to allow these types of loans?

ding ding we have a smart person who pays attention!

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So it's Bush fault? Please explain how Bush forced all those banks to produce shiat loans and force those idiots to sign them.

Not directly, no. But when you have a person in office who is VERY pro-big business and has already shown a willingness to bail out poorly run businesses, it makes the risk of these loans less risky.

So, no, Bush did not force anyone to do anything. But he did provide a climate where it was more likely to happen.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Well they broke it so they would know how to fix it. Oh who I'm I kidding we all know what their answer will be, more government. Don't worry if we run out of money we can always print more.

Dude, if we can point to anything that effed everything up (of course it's more complicated than just one thing, but it's a good jumping off point) it's the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act spearheaded by Phil Gramm who is now McCain's economic advisor. I honestly am perplexed by people that argue less regulation is better... there is just so little proof of that being actually true. But truth and fact have very little influence over people who don't care to actually know about things before the run off at the mouth sbout them.

Dancin_In_Anson: burndtdan: they broke it?

TFA: Clinton's campaign manager, Maggie Williams, earned at least $175,000 serving from 2000-07 on the board of Long Island-based Delta Financial, which filed for bankruptcy last year after a history of high-cost loans to low-income borrowers, according to public records.

Obama's national finance chairwoman, Penny Pritzker, was chairwoman of the board of a Chicago-area bank in 1993 when it adopted a subprime business strategy that regulators say ultimately led it to collapse in 2001.

Guess that's just bullshiat eh?

i'm not sure how that means "the democrats" did it. some private industry democrats were involved in it, as i'm sure many private industry republicans were involved in it. but if you're going to define that, it would be more realistic to say lenders did it, with actions that had nothing to do with their political disposition. i'm sure you would be at arms if i said republicans did it because there were some republican lenders involved, because it's a stupid thing to say.

however, if you're attributing it to a political party, you are saying that the politicians were responsible, through their political actions. to blame it on the democrats is to suggest that legislation passed by a democratic congress or supported by a democratic president was part of the root cause. and that, of course, is why we make fun of your delusions.

burndtdan: i'm not sure how that means "the democrats" did it. some private industry democrats were involved in it, as i'm sure many private industry republicans were involved in it.

So they (prominent democrats) did have a hand in it.

I honestly am perplexed by people that argue less regulation is better... there is just so little proof of that being actually true.

THIS

Dancin_In_Anson: burndtdan: i'm not sure how that means "the democrats" did it. some private industry democrats were involved in it, as i'm sure many private industry republicans were involved in it.

So they (prominent democrats) did have a hand in it.

Am I to take that as a yes or no?

Dancin_In_Anson: Am I to take that as a yes or no?

you can take that as maybe you should continue reading my post and maybe you'll figure out why what you said is retarded.

burndtdan: Dancin_In_Anson: Am I to take that as a yes or no?

you can take that as maybe you should continue reading my post and maybe you'll figure out why what you said is retarded.

DIA is like HOV. They're both really good at playing the whole "obtuse troll" thing.

burndtdan: you can take that as maybe you should continue reading my post

however, if you're attributing it to a political party, you are saying that the politicians were responsible, through their political actions. to blame it on the democrats is to suggest that legislation passed by a democratic congress or supported by a democratic president was part of the root cause

No...I'm not attributing anything to a party. I am pointing out that both democratic candidates have advisors that (as TFA states) had a hand in the subprime mess. I for one think that this is not a good thing.

If that is an cameroncrazy1984: "obtuse troll", so be it.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Well they broke it so they would know how to fix it. Oh who I'm I kidding we all know what their answer will be, more government. Don't worry if we run out of money we can always print more.

They broke it? Really? Who passed all the financial industry deregulation in the last 20 years?

Pro tip - it was before 2006.

Dancin_In_Anson: No...I'm not attributing anything to a party. I am pointing out that both democratic candidates have advisors that (as TFA states) had a hand in the subprime mess. I for one think that this is not a good thing.

So its just fine that McCain has an advisor who was involved?

vincentpriceisdead: I honestly am perplexed by people that argue less regulation is better... there is just so little proof of that being actually true. But truth and fact have very little influence over people who don't care to actually know about things before the run off at the mouth sbout them.

Degreulated is the natural state and we tried that. It wasn't better (see works of Dickens, Charles, et al) so now we have regulation to protect the greater good. It still allows our people to become fabulously, obscenely wealthy (Gates, Buffet) and keeps our poor from slitting their throats for their jewelry. The only people who argue for deregulatiuon are the ones who are regulated and the ones who have been duped by them.

Dancin_In_Anson: burndtdan: you can take that as maybe you should continue reading my post

however, if you're attributing it to a political party, you are saying that the politicians were responsible, through their political actions. to blame it on the democrats is to suggest that legislation passed by a democratic congress or supported by a democratic president was part of the root cause

No...I'm not attributing anything to a party. I am pointing out that both democratic candidates have advisors that (as TFA states) had a hand in the subprime mess. I for one think that this is not a good thing.

If that is an cameroncrazy1984: "obtuse troll", so be it.

first fact: you are defending someone who blamed the economic problems on the democrats.

second fact: to use your logic of why the democrats are culpable, the republicans are equally culpable in the private sector.

you're doing it wrong.

Rich people who are on boards of major corporations had their hands in it. It wasn't a left or right issue.

Not that it'll stop the crazies from thinking their rich guys on corporate boards didn't do anything.

cameroncrazy1984: DIA is like HOV. They're both really good at playing the whole "obtuse troll" thing.

you can't be a republican apologist in this environment for so long without some coping skills...

"Experts? When we got into office, the first thing we did across the board was fire all the so-called experts and replace them our with buddies and loyal kids fresh out of unaccredited Christian colleges. Worked out great!"

Chuck Wagon: So its just fine that McCain has an advisor who was involved?

burndtdan: to use your logic of why the democrats are culpable, the republicans are equally culpable in the private sector.

Well...it's ok then!

My bad.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Well they broke it so they would know how to fix it. Oh who I'm I kidding we all know what their answer will be, more government. Don't worry if we run out of money we can always print more.

Yes because the Republicans are doing so well on balancing the budget. The only time they care about 'limiting spending' is during the elections.

This is a tired old line, both parties are fiscally irresponsible, if you can't see that you must be blind.

Nestea Plunge: As we also know by the Great Conversion To Libertarianism of 2006.

I thought they are all "independents" now?

Poor people: "We can't get cars & houses because no one will give us money."

Banks: "Hey, let's be the good guys & offer low income & at risk borrowers an "opportunity" to buy a home."

Poor people: Run to the banks.

Banks: Hand out money

Poor people: "Oh, we're supposed to pay this back? No one ever made us pay before. I don't make enough to pay for this. Whaaaaaaaah! Why are you preying on us?"

Banks: Looking at P&L reports "Uh, oh."

I'm guessing the people that came up with this idea were blinded by their self satisfaction. You know damn well some bleeding heart in the biz thought this would be a fantastic opportunity for the financially challeneged to get a hand up on life & put absolutely zero thought into the consequences.

BobtheFascist: You know damn well some bleeding heart in the biz thought this would be a fantastic opportunity for the financially challeneged to get a hand up on life & put absolutely zero thought into the consequences.

I think that same reason is why some enterprising young man figured out how to cook down and cut cocaine to make a cheaper alternative in the form of crack.

I think that same reason is why some enterprising young man figured out how to cook down and cut cocaine to make a cheaper alternative in the form of crack.

The scary thing is, this analogy is so right on so many levels.

Well played sir.

/newsletter?

BobtheFascist: I'm guessing the people that came up with this idea were blinded by their self satisfaction.

Usury is not a new concept.

Yes.
Maggie and Penny are directly and solely responsible for this mess. You could drink milk out of Bush's hands.

If only there were some sort of rules or regulations that we could implement that could have stopped this from happening in the first place...

BobtheFascist: Poor people: "We can't get cars & houses because no one will give us money."

Banks: "Hey, let's be the good guys & offer low income & at risk borrowers an "opportunity" to buy a home."

Poor people: Run to the banks.

Banks: Hand out money

Poor people: "Oh, we're supposed to pay this back? No one ever made us pay before. I don't make enough to pay for this. Whaaaaaaaah! Why are you preying on us?"

Banks: Looking at P&L reports "Uh, oh."

I'm guessing the people that came up with this idea were blinded by their self satisfaction. You know damn well some bleeding heart in the biz thought this would be a fantastic opportunity for the financially challeneged to get a hand up on life & put absolutely zero thought into the consequences.

The amount of ignorance contained in this post is truly epic.

BobtheFascist:

This cartoon might be of some help to you. (new window)

BobtheFascist:

You left some steps out:

Poor people: "We can't get cars & houses because no one will give us money."

Politicians: "Banks are evil and greedy. They should start lending out more money to people with bad credit who are likely to default on their loans."

Banks: "But that will cause problems with our bottom lines and the economy."

Politicians: "Do it or we will force you to anyway."


Banks: "Hey, let's be the good guys & offer low income & at risk borrowers an "opportunity" to buy a home."

Poor people: Run to the banks.

Banks: Hand out money

Poor people: "Oh, we're supposed to pay this back? No one ever made us pay before. I don't make enough to pay for this. Whaaaaaaaah! Why are you preying on us?"

Banks: Looking at P&L reports "Uh, oh."


Politicians: "WTF were you Banks thinking!?! Now we are going to blame you for taking advantage of all those poor people and screwing up the economy. You are evil and greedy!!"

BobtheFascist: Poor people: "We can't get cars & houses because no one will give us money."

Banks: "Hey, let's be the good guys & offer low income & at risk borrowers an "opportunity" to buy a home."

Poor people: Run to the banks.

Banks: Hand out money

Poor people: "Oh, we're supposed to pay this back? No one ever made us pay before. I don't make enough to pay for this. Whaaaaaaaah! Why are you preying on us?"

I didn't know John McCain was a TFer.

BobtheFascist: Banks: "Hey, let's be the good guys & offer low income & at risk borrowers an "opportunity" to buy a home."

There is a whole hell of a lot more to this step that you're leaving out. The lenders knew they were taking a risk with these types of loans, so they repacked and sold them to third parties in order to minimize the risk. Actually "minimize the risk" probably isn't the best term, it was more like a game of hot potato. Everyone knew the bust was coming, the only question was who would be left holding the bag.

vincentpriceisdead: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Well they broke it so they would know how to fix it. Oh who I'm I kidding we all know what their answer will be, more government. Don't worry if we run out of money we can always print more.

Dude, if we can point to anything that effed everything up (of course it's more complicated than just one thing, but it's a good jumping off point) it's the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act spearheaded by Phil Gramm who is now McCain's economic advisor. I honestly am perplexed by people that argue less regulation is better... there is just so little proof of that being actually true. But truth and fact have very little influence over people who don't care to actually know about things before the run off at the mouth sbout them.

What you miss about the whole less regulation is better is that regulation is good for the community, state, country, but bad for the individual. It is good for an industry as a whole, but bad for individual companies. America has a whole rugged individulist pulling themselves up by their bootstraps that just won't die. Regulation raises the cost on the buisness, but lessons the cost on the individual.

Who benefits the most from deregulation? The individual or the corporation?

Dancin_In_Anson: Chuck Wagon: So its just fine that McCain has an advisor who was involved?

burndtdan: to use your logic of why the democrats are culpable, the republicans are equally culpable in the private sector.

Well...it's ok then!

My bad.

What the hell is your point? Did you have one? Or you were just trying to find some stupid excuse to bash democrats?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: burndtdan: i'm still amazed by the ability of republicans to delude themselves. you could walk into a room with george bush standing over a broken cookie jar with chocolate chips smeared across his lips, and still believe him when he told you that a democrat did it.

So it's Bush fault? Please explain how Bush forced all those banks to produce shiat loans and force those idiots to sign them.

Oh, so when it's Bush someone is pointing a finger at, then it's the banks fault, otherwise, it's the democrats. Great thinking there!

Also, talking about how "more government" is bad while defending the current administration, is like talking about how smoking will give you a lung cancer and kill you while smoking three cigars at a time.

- Perfect free markets can only happen with perfect information.
- Information is imperfect.
- Regulation is the means we use to compensate for lack of perfect information.

Overall, I am a proponent of less regulation, but I recognize the need for it in many cases. In the "old days" many people were less specialized and more independent. Trips into town may only happen once a month and you knew the people you were buying from. (Even then, there were some regulations of the "government market" in the form of the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, and others)

Today with the every increasing complexity of society and the market, there is too much information for any one person to be able to understand on their own. Regulation is the attempt to fill the knowledge gap by creating a situation where certain basic standards are assumed (which of course vary by industry).

My concept for government is one that is a clearinghouse for solid, reliable, easy to understand information about conditions, products, and consequences: sort of like an all encompassing Consumer Reports magazine, or an enormous database of all the information they can gather. The internet makes this at least conceivable, if not entirely possible. It's pie in the sky I know, people (especially those who enter politics) by nature are biased; but I would love to be able to have complete, unbiased information at my fingertips on any product or service: anywhere, anytime.

/Ramble?

Ultimately it happened because politicians for the past 15 years wanted to get credit for getting people homes, lenders wanted profits, and banks wanted customers.

Politicians shoving the blame solely onto banks is humorous though.

mediaho: vincentpriceisdead: I honestly am perplexed by people that argue less regulation is better... there is just so little proof of that being actually true. But truth and fact have very little influence over people who don't care to actually know about things before the run off at the mouth sbout them.

Degreulated is the natural state and we tried that. It wasn't better (see works of Dickens, Charles, et al) so now we have regulation to protect the greater good. It still allows our people to become fabulously, obscenely wealthy (Gates, Buffet) and keeps our poor from slitting their throats for their jewelry. The only people who argue for deregulatiuon are the ones who are regulated and the ones who have been duped by them.

True, but just like anything, there is a point of diminishing returns where over-regulation begins and becomes counterproductive. I have no problem with, for example, states requiring certain standards for the practice of medicine and who can call himself a doctor. But eventually -and almost inevitably- you reach the point where the babysitter has to call 911 or something ridiculous because Little Billy is spiking a fever and she's not allowed to give him an aspirin.

kennygeez: Oh, so when it's Bush someone is pointing a finger at, then it's the banks fault, otherwise, it's the democrats. Great thinking there!

Also, talking about how "more government" is bad while defending the current administration, is like talking about how smoking will give you a lung cancer and kill you while smoking three cigars at a time.

1) The were bankers first then they joined the campaigns.

2) you dont inhale cigars.

Hey you signed the bad deal now you pay the price. I've bought some bad stocks in the past and you dont see me asking for my money back. If you have record low interest rates and you sign an ARM do not be shocked when the rate goes up. What part of record lows did you not understand?

Chuck Wagon: What the hell is your point? Did you have one?

Yeah. If the Democratic candidates want to be taken seriously about what they say they can do to "fix" what they see as "broken", they shouldn't bring on advisors that had a hand in breaking it in the first place.

TheGreyPiper: mediaho: vincentpriceisdead: I honestly am perplexed by people that argue less regulation is better... there is just so little proof of that being actually true. But truth and fact have very little influence over people who don't care to actually know about things before the run off at the mouth sbout them.

Degreulated is the natural state and we tried that. It wasn't better (see works of Dickens, Charles, et al) so now we have regulation to protect the greater good. It still allows our people to become fabulously, obscenely wealthy (Gates, Buffet) and keeps our poor from slitting their throats for their jewelry. The only people who argue for deregulatiuon are the ones who are regulated and the ones who have been duped by them.

True, but just like anything, there is a point of diminishing returns where over-regulation begins and becomes counterproductive. I have no problem with, for example, states requiring certain standards for the practice of medicine and who can call himself a doctor. But eventually -and almost inevitably- you reach the point where the babysitter has to call 911 or something ridiculous because Little Billy is spiking a fever and she's not allowed to give him an aspirin.

I'll consider the point of diminishing returns to be a threshold where citizens can no longer become wealthy at the expense of the poor. We are not even close to that.

Dancin_In_Anson: burndtdan: i'm not sure how that means "the democrats" did it. some private industry democrats were involved in it, as i'm sure many private industry republicans were involved in it.

So they (prominent democrats) did have a hand in it.

[insert Inigo Montoya here]

Had you ever heard of Penny Pritzker or Maggie Williams before a week ago? Had anyone besides serious hardcore political junkies? If not, then they are not "prominent".