Harry Reid Sexes Up The Senate
by Big Dog on May 6, 2010 at 04:47 Political
No one in his right mind thinks of sex and soon to be FORMER Senator Harry Reid but Reid introduced sex into the debate on Wall Street reform. The Democrats, who get more money from Wall Street than Republicans, want to impose restrictions on Wall Street to keep another meltdown from happening and to keep the taxpayer from paying for more bailouts. The bill will not do that but that will not stop the Democrats.
Yes, the people who put the rules that caused the meltdown in place are making more rules.
Of course the left likes to paint Republicans as being in the pockets of the Wall Street executives. Sure, there are some but Wall Street is deeper in the pockets of Democrats.
Harry Reid tried to paint the Republicans as being in bed with Wall Street:
Reid charged that Republicans are stalling action on a Wall Street reform bill because “they are having difficulty determining how they’re going to continue making love to Wall Street” by resisting banking regulation. The Hill
Well Harry, you can keep trying to paint Republicans as being in bed with Wall Street by claiming they are making love to that entity.
It might be true and it might not.
But it is absolutely true that your side will screw Wall Street.
And the American public along with it.
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Democrats, Harry Reid, lies, Republicans, sex, wall street
“Well Harry, you can keep trying to paint Republicans as being in bed with Wall Street by claiming they are making love to that entity.
It might be true and it might not.
But it is absolutely true that your side will screw Wall Street.
And the American public along with it.”
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. This is probably why you have given up in other comments regarding the financial crisis. You just can’t hang, Doggie.
The measures that Reid is endorsing are good for the American people. In the long run, they very well might be good for Wall St. too. If the tables were turned and Dems were lining up against reform, I’d blast them. It’s not about politics, it’s about policy.
Regulation bad, wild west free market good. If only it was that easy, Dog.
PEACE
I have not given up in any comment thread. I get tired of weeding through your inane insults to find some sort of point. You make little sense.
Yes, the regulation will be so good that the bad guys like it. If Goldman likes it then it is because it benefits them.
There needs to be reform but the people who gave us the regulations that caused this are writing the new ones. Dodd and Frank caused the environment that allowed the collapse.
Fannie and Freddie, government entities that were mismanaged by Democrat pals who took millions while they bought up bad loans because the good ole taxpayer would bail them out.
Let us not forget that Bush and McCain warned about these two entities (Bush about 18 times) and it was Frank, Waters and a slew of other Democrats who said that they were sound and all was well.
Congress FORCED banks to make loans to people who could not pay them back. Those loans were bought up, bundled and sold (Fannie and Freddie bought a bunch of them) and when things when bad they went really bad. It was not illegal to bundle them and any business that could rid itself of toxic assets the government forced them into would be crazy not to do so.
The regulation that they are proposing is intrusive all the way down to consumers getting credit cards or buying cars.
We needed reform in health care and got intrusion. A complete takeover that now has elements surfacing that are bad, as we stated. Congress found out they have to give up what they have, surprised a lot of them. Illegals will be covered, taxes will go up and it will cost a lot more than stated and not save money.
But we had to pass it to find out what is in it.
No, the financial reform that Democrats want is based on helping out their pals, the ones from Wall Street who give them millions in donations and it will screw over the smaller banks and financial institutions.
The financial industry has quite a bit of regulation as it is but since Congress finds ways to allow their buddies a pass (you know like giving BP a pass on environmental impacts–Obama did it) because they get money from them.
Anyone who thinks that the lobbyists for the financial industry and the members of Congress who have been bought by them will allow a bill to hurt them is a nut.
Dog- You’re giving me a headache. A few things you should know (and obviously don’t).
1. HUD targets for laons to low/moderate incomes were set @ 42% in 1992 and then raised again by that socialist Clinton to 50%. For some unknown reason, Great Emporer Bush and his crew then upped it to 56%. What a sissy. He’d have no place in todays tea party. Anyway, these targets meant that Fannie and Freddie were forced to give loans to rising numbers of low to mid income borrowers. Yes, this happened. And it wasn’t just because Barney Frank was gaily handing out mortgages to every brother in the street. Your side was in on this too.
2. Fannie and Freddie were prohibited from buying or securitizing subprime mortgages. Everyone knows (except you, I assume) that the mortgage meltdown started with the spike in defaults on subrime and the skyrocketing costs for insurance against this junk. Fannie and Freddies problems were when defaults jumped on ALL types of mortgages and the price of CDS protection went sky high for securities built with “good” mortgages, not subprime.
3. PLENTY of subprime loans (again, it was illegal for Fannie and Freddie to get involved in these- in case you still don’t understand) were given to speculators. You remember these folks right? People who “flipped” houses and blindly assumed that they could always sell their investment at a profit before their teaser rate expired because home prices ALWAYS rose. A large % of the subprime sludge went not to poor people trying to buy a house they could not afford (sure, SOME did), but to people trying to make a buck on a quick investment. This is fact.
You could have known all of these things before I pointed them out to you. Open up a book. You’ll have so much more credibility once you know what your talking about.
Stick to the hate filled immigration stuff, Doggie. That is where you shine. Leave the finance to people who better understand it.
PEACE
Oh, Frankie Raines could NOT POSSIBLY have been at fault, cooking the books of the FMs- oh no- in spite of walking away with 90 million- will Barrie tell Frankie to give back that money, “that he has made enough” money?
I get so tired of you progressives ignoring the evidence in front of you, just because it does not fit your storyline.
AIG, BOA,and Goldman Sachs were the biggest contributors to Owe-bama’s campaign, and he is using them as whipping boys, just as he is using BP for the same, but these businesses will have a payday at the end, because IT IS ALL FOR SHOW.
Right Bush was at fault:
On September 10, 2003, the Bush Administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set capital-reserve requirements for the company and to determine whether the company is adequately managing the risks of its portfolios. The New York Times reported that the plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is broken. The Times also reported Democratic opposition to Bush’s plan: “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” [16] Congress, controlled by Republicans during this period, did not introduce any legislation aimed at bringing this proposal into law until the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which did not proceed out of committee to the Senate. Link
Read that piece. It explains how Clinton and Carter called for relaxing rules and making it easier for people who could not really afford homes.
You can already see how Barney fit in.
And FREDDIE and FANNIE do not make loans, they purchase them from the market. FANNIE and FREDDIE began purchasing subprime mortgages at the end of the 90s and held about 11.5% of the market in 2001.
The GSEs say their stronger presence in the subprime market will create lower priced mortgages for some subprime borrowers. Link
Never quite worked out that way. Companies were forced to lend to people who could not pay the loans back and those subprime loans were bundled and purchased by the GSEs. Since these two hold about 95% of our mortgages it seems they must hold quite a few subprime.
FANNIE was created in the New Deal era and is now another failed government experiment. You see, with the Democrats handing out a revolving door of jobs for friends who cooked the books to walk away with tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses they ran it into the ground.
So as far as understanding the financial stuff, I have shown that these GSEs did indeed buy subprime mortgages, that they do not lend money but purchase from lenders both items that refute your claims that FANNIE and FREDDIE were forced to give loans (they purchase them) and your claim they were not allowed to purchase subprime (which you repeated for me in case I did not understand). I also showed that Bush, in 2003, expressed a lot of concern and that Frank dismissed it.
Tell me again about leaving the financial stuff to people like you who understand it so well…
At least I know why you have a headache. Not knowing what you are talking about will do that to you.
And you should try reading books by people who know what they are talking about.
I was mistaken (for a change). Fannie and Freddie were permitted to buy AAA rated tranches (think of these as slices, Dog) of MBS backed by subprime debt. They lobbied to get in on the subprime bonanza and did get a little piece of the action. 11.5% of the market in 2001? Doesn’t that mean that 88.5% was held by private entities? Hardly the gubment conspiracy you claim it is.
So Bush didn’t have any control over his own HUD? I thought he was the decider? Oh, he “expressed concern”? Weren’t both houses of congress in republican hands in 2003? (Senate was 50/50 but Cheney broke ties). Barney Frank sure did get a lot of sh!t done all by his lonesome.
No, Fannie and Freddie do not “give” loans to people. It was a poor choice of wording. But when they buy and hold MBS they are indeed involved in people getting mortgages.
Back to the good folks holding that 88.5% of junk in 2001, Dog. Should we regulate them? Should we break up the ones that are “too big to fail”? Tell me.
PEACE
HAHAHA
You really are funny.
11.5% was 2003. Now they hold >95% of ALL mortgages. It works like this. Banks make bad loans because of government rules on lending otherwise Sharpton and ACORN protest and shut down their institutions. The banks sell the loans which are bundled and bought by one of the GSEs. Problem solved, banks made the loans and got rid of the toxic asset that will be covered by a government that will not let the GSEs fail.
Only problem, when the toxic assets spoiled the GSEs held a lot of them which is why they are in receivership. While Dem after Dem waltzed into the place and made millions while running it into the ground, Frank et al were saying all was well. And yes, Frank was on Finance Committee, if it does not get out of committee then it dies.
And a 50/50 split means more gridlock so tes Dems could stop anything. Look at how you guys are whining about the minority Republican party holding you back.
Since the market did not collapse in 2001 you are foolish to ask about it. The point is that they got into subprime in the late 90s and by 2001 already held 11.5%
Let us look at what they held from 2005-2007:
Government regulations preclude Fannie and Freddie from buying mortgages that don’t meet down payment and credit requirements. However, as the mortgage market changed, so did their business. Between 2005-2007, few of the mortgages acquired were conventional fixed-interest loans with 20% down. Fannie Mae’s loan acquisitions were:
* 62% negative amortization
* 84% interest only
* 58% subprime
* 62% required less than 10% downpayment.
Freddie Mac’s loans were even more risky, consisting of:
* 72% negative amortization
* 97% interest only
* 67% subprime
* 68% required less than 10% downpayment. Link
Look at the percentage of negative amortization and subprime (two entities to look at). When things were going south these two held 90% of the mortgages. Because they were backed by the government they did not have to worry about risky practices.
Seven or so big institutions held risky securities as well. You can make money if you buy subprime mortgage bonds provided that the subprime mortgages come from people who have a reasonable chance of paying them off.
Greed, government backing, predatory lending, government rules about lending and lack of government oversight (even with rules in place) caused a problem.
The SEC was busy looking at porn while Madoff bilked people. How much of this would have been averted if they had been doing their jobs and if Congress had actually provided some oversight? The SEC stayed out of the way and let things just go.
There is a revolving door from the SEC to Wall Street to Administration after administration. They are ALL in bed together.
We can reform Wall Street but we must reform Congress as well.
Can you ignore the clear evidence (you tube clips) that show Bush calling (in2000) for more regs on the FMs? then came 9/11, and he was occupied- but McCain took up the call in 2004, and was told by Bawney Fwank that the “fundamentals of Fannie and Freddie were sound,” and ther was no problem- that was 2004, bubba- and three years BEFORE the meltdown.
Hell, there’s even a clip of Bubba Clinton admitting that the Democrats are at fault for the meltdown- if I was O’Reilly or Beck, I would play that clip EVERY freakin’ night, just to begin the program.
Dog- I checked out your source. About.com- the authority on everything. A quote from the piece caught my eye…”Even so, by 2007 only 17% of their total portfolio was either either subprime or Alt-A loans. Due to regulations, their percentage of these loans are actually better than many banks.” (The “they” is Fannie and Freddie, of course). 17% huh? I think that means there was a sh!tload of subprime junk being held by private business. But you overlook this and blame everything on the gubment. You make little sense.
Ah, Madoff and the SEC. Funny you bring them up. It was during Great Emperor Bush’s reign that the SEC looked the other way (or at porn, as you say) while Madoff robbed his investors. Do you know who Chris Cox is, Dog? Check him out. Another disinterested regulator installed by the republicans. He shoulda moonlighted with the MMS.
Flake- “then came 9/11 and he was occupied”. Well put. Thank God we now have a President who can do more than one thing at a time.
McCain took up the call? Who, this John McCain?…
“”the fundamentals of our economy are strong” September 2008
Yeah, I don’t think I’ll be taking his economic advice anytime soon. McSame is another master multi-tasker. He suspended his campaign to return to Washington and “fix” our economic problems. He then voted (with Obama) for the $700bill bailout. Way to bring him into this, Flake. It really helps your argument.
PEACE
No Bunny, they held higher percentages of subprime just as indicated. They hod over 90% of all mortgages. Stevie Wonder can see they have to have the bulk of subprimes. Why is that?
Because they were playing the market and they lost.
Funny, when McCain said the fundamentals of the economy were strong (which they are, because he was speaking of fundamentals) you derided him and still do. When Obama said it he is your genius.
Bunny, were you the guy who went through the full body X-Ray machine and then went off because everybody saw your shortcomings? That might explain why you feel it is necessary to change people’s names and hurl insults. I understand you play with children all day but do you need to act like them?