raises privacy concerns. C'mon people, this privacy at all costs meme is getting a little extreme. This add-on is for people who want to be tracked! Most people who DL Firefox are smart enough not to enable this add-on. For those that aren't should a cool feature not be added to protect people from themselves? Then let's ban guns too (no, let's not).
Possibly, but at least Biden gives the impression of understanding the constitution. It's not a lot if you want to lead a country, but a basic understanding of the law is kind of vital, I think.
Go back and look. Biden, ranting about Cheney's role in the Bush Administration said that Article I made it clear that that the VP was an executive branch officer. Wrong, first, because Article I is the legislative branch (Article II spells out the Executive). Scary, the guy makes law and sits on the Judiciary Committee and doesn't even know the 17 enumerated powers of Congress are in Article I.
Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesnâ(TM)t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that. - Con Law expert Joe Biden from last Thursday's debate
Even my freshmen Poli Sci students know better than this. Also wrong because the VP is the one member of the US government that has powers in both branches, as VP in the executive and as president of the Senate. Biden has been in the Senate like 30 years and he doesn't know who the president of that body is?
Biden makes huge gaffes and nobody ever reports it. Like "we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon"?
And let's not forget his genius statement earlier that FDR went on TV after the 1929 crash.
Palin is new to foreign policy - just as every governor is, Clinton, Reagan, Carter - so she's going to be learning. Biden is a long-serving senator on the Foreign Relations Committee. What's his excuse?
I know it's been hotly debated, but some argue that Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage. I know others have tried to debunk this claim, but I am not convinced either way. A lot of the reactions to this argument sound very emotional. Science is supposed to be dispassionate.
You realize, of course, that you've left a lot out?
Yes, it is Saturday and I (am trying to) have a life.
You realize, of course, that the CRA did not force banks to make loans to individuals who couldn't afford them? What it did do was say that you could not refuse credit based on location or area (redlining) and instead had to base your loan evaluation on the INDIVIDUAL, and upon the individual's ability to pay. (Try reading the bill and not the Wiki.)
You realize the politics involved in the enforcement of this law? The collusion between the Clinton administration and race-baiters like Acorn and Rainbow Coalition? Read The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities to see what really went on with CRA and then tell me it was a harmless, fairly-enforced policy. PLEASE, IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS ARTICLE.
You realize, of course, that the vast majority of the subprime loans that are going belly-up were made by financial institutions like CountryWide... which are not banks, and as such, WERE NOT COVERED BY THE CRA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The CRA is but one of the problems I listed. Like Freddie and Fannie's effects on credit and the housing bubble? While the GOP attempted to reign in the FM's, Dems said "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" to.
You realize, of course, that in early 2005, the Office of Thrift Supervision (under GW Bush) implemented new rules that substantially weakened the CRA, and as such, its impact on credit markets?
Good! Of course you'll give Bush credit for this? But there was still a decade of this shit going on prior to 2005.
You realize, of course, that a good portion of our current crisis [wikipedia.org] is caused by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, introduced by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), which in 1999 repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act, opening up "competition" among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. Which in turn lead to our current set of mega-institutions that are so large and intertwined they can't be allowed to fail?
Wrong wrong wrong! That "deregulation" actually helped mitigate the crisis by allowing prudently managed banks like Wells Fargo to diversify their portfolios and products in other areas (like mutual funds, etc) besides home loans. Had they not been able to do so, the bailout would have been a lot bigger. Wamu was stupid, but some banks took advantage of the law.
And the securities companies (already massive and trading in derivatives long before 1999) failed because of the credit swaps, not because they were "competing" with banks. It was buying the already shitty mortgages that killed them. In other words, they were very often a customer, not a competitor.
The same Phil Gramm, BTW, that was John McCain's presidential campaign co-chair and his most senior economic adviser. The same Gramm that in July explained the nation was not in a recession, stating, "We have sort of become a nation of whiners."
And Gramm was exactly right. We were not in a recession, which is two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. We didn't even have one.
And we have turned into a nation of whiners. There was a time when people did not blame the government for their bad decisions and fortunes, like taking out loans they couldn't afford, then blaming big bad lenders. A time when just about every economic, social, and educational indicator was much lower than today, yet people complained less.
Now, people just want to bitch and have government be their mommy, then bitch again when government predictably screws it up. The government shouldn't be a mommy because 1) adults should be responsible for themselves and 2) Britney Spears is more qualified for the job than Uncle Sam.
And shout "la la la la la I can't hear you." That's what libs do with inconvenient truths. This Plasma guy is just going to believe what he wants to believe, not the very words of congressmen as reported by a major newspaper. Of course, making ad hominem attacks is easier than going and looking up the facts for himself. "But a conservative said it, so it can't be true." Typical lib logic.
And just how did CRA force lenders to enter in to bad contracts?
You know what? I am tired of typing the same thing over and over again and people like you ignoring the plain truth about something that is easily Wikipedia'd or Google'd. Either read my post on it or read this 2001 article laying it all out about CRA's horrors. This was a Trillion Dollar Government Shakedown of Banks, whether you want to believe it or not. I suspect you are inclined to believe what you want, not what the facts tell you (isn't that what people here say about the Intelligent Design folks?). You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, brother.
Quotes from congressmen... those are really really credible!
They comments of congressmen are pretty fucking credible to determine whether said congressmen went on record defending the lending practices of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Which they did, if you would actually RTFA before slamming it.
Oh.. and please look up the definition of ad hominem attack.
OK.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. source
You attacked the WSJ instead of dealing with the quotes of Democratic members of Congress defending the FMs. Sounds like an ad hominem attack to me.
"When you have no argument, attack the plaintiff." - Cicero
...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, how those government sponsored enterprises acted as ATMs
A lie. Fannie Mae specifically didn't have any US backing on the paper it gave out. And probably the same for Freddie Mac.
It's not a lie. The simple fact is they are government created entities fulfilling a government mission - just like the post office. And like the post office, they are exempt from the rules that private companies are bound to follow.
Created by the federal government in 1938, Fannie Mae was given a range of special privileges, including exemption from state and local taxes, a $2.25 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury, and the implicit backing of the federal government. Fannie Mae is a government sponsored entity, a hybridized enterprise endowed with an advantageous set of special privileges. Source
And both of those entities - regardless of official policy - made private representations to lenders that the government had their backs, and Republicans were trying to stop this.
Washington-based Fannie and McLean, Va.-based Freddie are the engines behind a complex process of buying, bundling and selling mortgages that remains a mystery to millions of Americans whose home loans pass through this system. Together Fannie and Freddie hold or guarantee about $5 trillion in mortgage debt â" about half of the nation's total.
They traditionally backed the safest loans, 30-year fixed rate mortgages that required a down payment of at least 20 percent. But in recent years, they lowered their standards dramatically, matching a decline fueled by Wall Street banks that backed the now-defunct subprime lending industry.
Armando Falcon, who clashed frequently with the companies during his six years as Fannie and Freddie's chief government regulator, said in an interview last month that the companies' woes are similar to the downfall of other major corporate titans like Enron and WorldCom earlier this decade. "It boils down to a whole lot of greed and arrogance," he said.
The companies, he said, took advantage of the perception on Wall Street that the government would stand behind them in a time of crisis, as is now the case.Source
****
Dems forced banks to lend to those with bad credit
I keep hearing this. Show me one example where a bank was forced to loan out money to someone and where they instead couldn't have said "fuck this I am not lending any more money with these kind of unprofitable regulations."
More than an example (since I have no access to bank loan records or to the private conversations of bankers), I'll just point out to you that dramatically expanding the subprime lending market was the whole purpose and effect of the Clinton's Expansion of CRA. Just Google "Clinton CRA subprime" to see what the effects were.
The WSJ opinion column is listed among the most ultra-right publications in the US.
It's about as credible and unbiased as Freedom Socialist [socialism.com]
Nice ad hominem attack. The "column" reprinted direct quotes by those senators and congressmen. Are you claiming they didn't actually say those things? Fine, go look in the Congressional Record. You lefties are unbelievable. A "right wing source" reports on something that the mainstream media ignores, and you call the former biased rather than the latter. Nice logic!
I'm sorry, but the organizations you're bashing were legitimate. Just because they're meant to assist lower income families doesn't make them any more corrupt than the big wall street houses which also fell victim to corporate malfeasance.
"Legitimate" if you think the role of government is to create entities which tinker with the markets, which I do not, on both ideological grounds and the fact that THEY COMPLETELY HOSED THE HOUSING MARKET. The Wall Street houses made some bad decisions on credit swaps, but that's because they didn't know what a house of cards the market would turn out to be because of the bad loans pushed by government policy. The mantra seems to be if a little old lady makes a bad investment because she didn't know all the facts, she's a victim. If Lehman does the same thing, they are corrupt greedy fat cats who get what they deserve. The point is, DEMOCRATS fought to stop any reform of this subprime lending.
How dare you attack democratic defense of the lower-middle and lower classes from abuses of wealthy people who are just as bigoted against them as white supremacists are againt the afro-american population.
How DARE I express my opinion! Right, because people with bad credit deserve to live in homes and get loans or else the lenders are racist.
So let me get this straight: We needed a giant government-created enterprise to ensure that the "wealthy" lend money to poor people with bad credit and low income. Then, when said poor people default on the mortgages, it is the wealthy's fault? Which is it? That they wouldn't loan them money or that they did (with government coercion, no less)?
Whoever modded parent as "insightful" are all so busy slamming Fox News that you don't even know who is responsible for all of this. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
So basically, George Bush redefines conservatism and that makes me less conservative than Ralph Nader? I've been railing on Bush's spending and big-government "conservatism" for years.
How, exactly, is my ideology tied to George W Bush's?
Yes, it's a long article. It will require you to think and understand. That's how learning occurs.
And how is linking to the LA Times and Wikipedia and the Wall Street Journal "sticking to Fox News Bullet points"? I guess the truth hurts. Apparently you didn't take your own advice on how learning occurs and didn't read my links, and just made ad hominem attacks against me. Instead, you ignored my links and what they said and just posted some random story about how Bush is not Reagan. Yeah, thanks, I already knew that.
They can't accept the fact that the free market is what caused this mess.
Wait, what? What a stunning display of ignorance of how the whole subprime lending system worked. In a "free market" the government does not intervene. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government sponsored enterprises (AKA, "ATMs"), are no more "free market" than the post office. In this "free market," both FMs artificially inflated both credit and housing markets (just as government student loan programs have done to tuition) by pouring money into the system, and representing to the banks "don't worry, we are backed by Uncle Sam, what could go wrong?". In a "free market", government regulations like mark-to-market, which caused massive bank paper losses, don't exist. In a "free market," you don't have a CRA telling lenders how they have to loan their money. In a "free market" you don't have corrupt senators like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who are on important congressional banking oversight committees (which themselves wouldn't exist in a "free market"), leaning on lenders to make subprime loans, and fighting attempts to reign in these out-of-control Government-Sponsored Monstrosities..
Here's what Chuck Schumer said back in 2003, when Republicans wanted more oversight of said Government-Sponsored Monstrosities:
Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.
So Schumer himself opposed reform on the grounds that the "free market" is the wrong approach. Massive government intervention and regulation was the status quo. But now it is the "free market's" fault? WTF?
Yeah, sounds like a "free market" alright. Just like public housing is a free market.
This is the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think libs are well-meaning but horribly misguided. Liberals think conservatives are evil (and this gets modded as insightful rather than flamebait!). And it's the conservatives who are "intolerant."
For the record, it was Democrats who got us in this mess, not Republicans. Democrats created these government-sponsored ATMs (Freddie and Fannie), the CRA, and your fair-and-balanced media won't report on Chris Dodd's and Barney Frank's (sorry, only Fox News is reporting this one, so had to use them) ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, how those government sponsored enterprises acted as ATMs, and how Dems forced banks to lend to those with bad credit. And how they fought John McCain's 2005 home mortgage reform bill. But now it's Republicans' fault? THIS IS A GOVERNMENT-CREATED PROBLEM that Republicans tried to regulate and Democrats wanted unregulated. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
The lack of reporting on what really caused this scandal is a scandal in itself. Reading these threads shows me how the media has not done its job.
BTW, "pursuit of happiness?" Now we are citing the Declaration of Independence as law?
I'd sure as hell hope so. That whole intent thing is important, at least to me.
Of course it's important, but the Declaration of Independence has no legal weight. It is a political document. You can't cite it in court. Any high school American Government teacher would tell you that. Did you miss that day?
Oh, and if you care about intent of the Framers, there is that "liberty" part as well. The Framers would be rolling over in their graves to learn the government actually has the power to set aside voluntary private contracts so easily. They felt so strongly about contracts being inviolable that they wrote it into the Constitution (which is actually citable in court as law). How's that for intent?
For the record, I teach business law and political science, so I'm not just talking out of my ass here.
Umm, warranty law specifically makes reference to it being illegal for a vendor to sell a product and require a service tie-in. Just what part of the law would you really know, sir? Magnusson-Moss had lots more in it than just warranty.
Great, another jailhouse Slashdot lawyer. Well I am an actual lawyer, since you called out my knowledge. As Stu points out, MMWA, as the name suggests, is a restriction on warranty law, not tying products and services together, which celcos have been doing for years, Sparky.
As is typical here, Slashdot submitters and commentators, so critical of judges not knowing tech, know nothing about how the law works. A 12b(6) motion is Apple arguing "you cannot sue for that." The motion is challenging solely on legal grounds - for the purposes of the law, all the facts are considered true. In other words, the facts aren't even being considered in a 12b(6) hearing. The motion was denied, but that is a long, long way from the plaintiffs winning. And they will likely lose a summary judgment, which considers the facts, or lack of them, supporting the suit.
Disclaimer: IAALBNYL. (I am a lawyer but not your lawyer) This is not legal advice, so don't rely on it. Not that you can tell most of the know-it-all jerks on Slashdot anything anyway. If you told them the time of day they'd probably argue with you. But I digress. Do not rely on this as legal advice.
Unfortunately, Apple only allows them to buy iPhones tied to a service, which is in contravention of the MM Warranty Act.
According to who, the plaintiffs in the case? You? All the major cell carriers in America have been doing this for years. It allows the celcos to subsidize the high price of phone hardware. Show me case law that interprets MMWA this way. This is a lawsuit that survived a 12b(6), which is a long, long way from winning on the merits.
Not warranty law. No way Apple loses this case, at least not on tying grounds, no matter what a smartass jailhouse lawyer you like to pretend to be on Slashdot.
Too bad the judge bought it. The relevant market under antitrust law is PDAs, not Apple's own OS. And Apple doesn't have a monopoly on PDAs.
As an Apple stockholder, I wish people would either buy iphones or not. Instead, they voluntarily enter a contract for a hugely subsidized phone, and then sue. All this kind of lawsuit crap is going to do is drive up the prices of phones, leading to less innovation (who's going to buy a $600 phone?).
I thought people here were libertarians? I guess there's a lot of libertarian for me, nanny state for you libertarians out there.
Seriously? Are you serious? Because there's an f'ing law against artificially tying products to services. It's illegal under current legal definitions because there's a law against it. Jesus.
No, there's only a law against tying if the party doing it has a dominant market share. The relevant market here is PDA phones, and Apple sure as hell doesn't have a monopoly in the PDA market. Maybe you should know your law before you start railing on others.
Slashdot Mirror
raises privacy concerns. C'mon people, this privacy at all costs meme is getting a little extreme. This add-on is for people who want to be tracked! Most people who DL Firefox are smart enough not to enable this add-on. For those that aren't should a cool feature not be added to protect people from themselves? Then let's ban guns too (no, let's not).
Possibly, but at least Biden gives the impression of understanding the constitution. It's not a lot if you want to lead a country, but a basic understanding of the law is kind of vital, I think.
Go back and look. Biden, ranting about Cheney's role in the Bush Administration said that Article I made it clear that that the VP was an executive branch officer. Wrong, first, because Article I is the legislative branch (Article II spells out the Executive). Scary, the guy makes law and sits on the Judiciary Committee and doesn't even know the 17 enumerated powers of Congress are in Article I.
Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesnâ(TM)t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that. - Con Law expert Joe Biden from last Thursday's debate
Even my freshmen Poli Sci students know better than this. Also wrong because the VP is the one member of the US government that has powers in both branches, as VP in the executive and as president of the Senate. Biden has been in the Senate like 30 years and he doesn't know who the president of that body is?
Biden makes huge gaffes and nobody ever reports it. Like "we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon"? And let's not forget his genius statement earlier that FDR went on TV after the 1929 crash.
Palin is new to foreign policy - just as every governor is, Clinton, Reagan, Carter - so she's going to be learning. Biden is a long-serving senator on the Foreign Relations Committee. What's his excuse?
At least that's what my GF tells me.
I know it's been hotly debated, but some argue that Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage. I know others have tried to debunk this claim, but I am not convinced either way. A lot of the reactions to this argument sound very emotional. Science is supposed to be dispassionate.
Seems to me, most people on Slashdot likely *only* experience singularity nakedness.
You realize, of course, that you've left a lot out?
Yes, it is Saturday and I (am trying to) have a life.
You realize, of course, that the CRA did not force banks to make loans to individuals who couldn't afford them? What it did do was say that you could not refuse credit based on location or area (redlining) and instead had to base your loan evaluation on the INDIVIDUAL, and upon the individual's ability to pay. (Try reading the bill and not the Wiki.)
You realize the politics involved in the enforcement of this law? The collusion between the Clinton administration and race-baiters like Acorn and Rainbow Coalition? Read The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities to see what really went on with CRA and then tell me it was a harmless, fairly-enforced policy. PLEASE, IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS ARTICLE.
You realize, of course, that the vast majority of the subprime loans that are going belly-up were made by financial institutions like CountryWide... which are not banks, and as such, WERE NOT COVERED BY THE CRA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The CRA is but one of the problems I listed. Like Freddie and Fannie's effects on credit and the housing bubble? While the GOP attempted to reign in the FM's, Dems said "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" to.
You realize, of course, that in early 2005, the Office of Thrift Supervision (under GW Bush) implemented new rules that substantially weakened the CRA, and as such, its impact on credit markets?
Good! Of course you'll give Bush credit for this? But there was still a decade of this shit going on prior to 2005.
You realize, of course, that a good portion of our current crisis [wikipedia.org] is caused by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, introduced by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), which in 1999 repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act, opening up "competition" among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. Which in turn lead to our current set of mega-institutions that are so large and intertwined they can't be allowed to fail?
Wrong wrong wrong! That "deregulation" actually helped mitigate the crisis by allowing prudently managed banks like Wells Fargo to diversify their portfolios and products in other areas (like mutual funds, etc) besides home loans. Had they not been able to do so, the bailout would have been a lot bigger. Wamu was stupid, but some banks took advantage of the law. And the securities companies (already massive and trading in derivatives long before 1999) failed because of the credit swaps, not because they were "competing" with banks. It was buying the already shitty mortgages that killed them. In other words, they were very often a customer, not a competitor.
The same Phil Gramm, BTW, that was John McCain's presidential campaign co-chair and his most senior economic adviser. The same Gramm that in July explained the nation was not in a recession, stating, "We have sort of become a nation of whiners."
And Gramm was exactly right. We were not in a recession, which is two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. We didn't even have one.
And we have turned into a nation of whiners. There was a time when people did not blame the government for their bad decisions and fortunes, like taking out loans they couldn't afford, then blaming big bad lenders. A time when just about every economic, social, and educational indicator was much lower than today, yet people complained less.
Now, people just want to bitch and have government be their mommy, then bitch again when government predictably screws it up. The government shouldn't be a mommy because 1) adults should be responsible for themselves and 2) Britney Spears is more qualified for the job than Uncle Sam.
Do you work for the
Factcheck does a good job of spreading the blame, but they do seem to underplay the effects of Fannie and Freddie.
And shout "la la la la la I can't hear you." That's what libs do with inconvenient truths. This Plasma guy is just going to believe what he wants to believe, not the very words of congressmen as reported by a major newspaper. Of course, making ad hominem attacks is easier than going and looking up the facts for himself. "But a conservative said it, so it can't be true." Typical lib logic.
And just how did CRA force lenders to enter in to bad contracts?
You know what? I am tired of typing the same thing over and over again and people like you ignoring the plain truth about something that is easily Wikipedia'd or Google'd. Either read my post on it or read this 2001 article laying it all out about CRA's horrors. This was a Trillion Dollar Government Shakedown of Banks, whether you want to believe it or not. I suspect you are inclined to believe what you want, not what the facts tell you (isn't that what people here say about the Intelligent Design folks?). You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, brother.
Quotes from congressmen... those are really really credible!
They comments of congressmen are pretty fucking credible to determine whether said congressmen went on record defending the lending practices of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Which they did, if you would actually RTFA before slamming it.
Oh.. and please look up the definition of ad hominem attack.
OK.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. source
You attacked the WSJ instead of dealing with the quotes of Democratic members of Congress defending the FMs. Sounds like an ad hominem attack to me.
"When you have no argument, attack the plaintiff." - Cicero
...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, how those government sponsored enterprises acted as ATMs
A lie. Fannie Mae specifically didn't have any US backing on the paper it gave out. And probably the same for Freddie Mac.
It's not a lie. The simple fact is they are government created entities fulfilling a government mission - just like the post office. And like the post office, they are exempt from the rules that private companies are bound to follow.
Created by the federal government in 1938, Fannie Mae was given a range of special privileges, including exemption from state and local taxes, a $2.25 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury, and the implicit backing of the federal government. Fannie Mae is a government sponsored entity, a hybridized enterprise endowed with an advantageous set of special privileges. Source
And both of those entities - regardless of official policy - made private representations to lenders that the government had their backs, and Republicans were trying to stop this.
Washington-based Fannie and McLean, Va.-based Freddie are the engines behind a complex process of buying, bundling and selling mortgages that remains a mystery to millions of Americans whose home loans pass through this system. Together Fannie and Freddie hold or guarantee about $5 trillion in mortgage debt â" about half of the nation's total.
They traditionally backed the safest loans, 30-year fixed rate mortgages that required a down payment of at least 20 percent. But in recent years, they lowered their standards dramatically, matching a decline fueled by Wall Street banks that backed the now-defunct subprime lending industry.
Armando Falcon, who clashed frequently with the companies during his six years as Fannie and Freddie's chief government regulator, said in an interview last month that the companies' woes are similar to the downfall of other major corporate titans like Enron and WorldCom earlier this decade. "It boils down to a whole lot of greed and arrogance," he said.
The companies, he said, took advantage of the perception on Wall Street that the government would stand behind them in a time of crisis, as is now the case. Source
****
Dems forced banks to lend to those with bad credit
I keep hearing this. Show me one example where a bank was forced to loan out money to someone and where they instead couldn't have said "fuck this I am not lending any more money with these kind of unprofitable regulations."
More than an example (since I have no access to bank loan records or to the private conversations of bankers), I'll just point out to you that dramatically expanding the subprime lending market was the whole purpose and effect of the Clinton's Expansion of CRA. Just Google "Clinton CRA subprime" to see what the effects were.
Howard Husock warned of all of this in 2001: The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities.
And again, what did Democrats say during 2003 hearings on this problem?
And how they fought John McCain's 2005 home mortgage reform bill.
Democrats retook congress in 2006.
In the Senate, you need 60 votes to pass anything. Democrats promised to filibuster the bill from even getting a vote, and so it died in committee.
Thus ends your political science lesson.
The WSJ opinion column is listed among the most ultra-right publications in the US.
It's about as credible and unbiased as Freedom Socialist [socialism.com]
Nice ad hominem attack. The "column" reprinted direct quotes by those senators and congressmen. Are you claiming they didn't actually say those things? Fine, go look in the Congressional Record. You lefties are unbelievable. A "right wing source" reports on something that the mainstream media ignores, and you call the former biased rather than the latter. Nice logic!
I'm sorry, but the organizations you're bashing were legitimate. Just because they're meant to assist lower income families doesn't make them any more corrupt than the big wall street houses which also fell victim to corporate malfeasance.
"Legitimate" if you think the role of government is to create entities which tinker with the markets, which I do not, on both ideological grounds and the fact that THEY COMPLETELY HOSED THE HOUSING MARKET. The Wall Street houses made some bad decisions on credit swaps, but that's because they didn't know what a house of cards the market would turn out to be because of the bad loans pushed by government policy. The mantra seems to be if a little old lady makes a bad investment because she didn't know all the facts, she's a victim. If Lehman does the same thing, they are corrupt greedy fat cats who get what they deserve. The point is, DEMOCRATS fought to stop any reform of this subprime lending.
How dare you attack democratic defense of the lower-middle and lower classes from abuses of wealthy people who are just as bigoted against them as white supremacists are againt the afro-american population.
How DARE I express my opinion! Right, because people with bad credit deserve to live in homes and get loans or else the lenders are racist.
So let me get this straight: We needed a giant government-created enterprise to ensure that the "wealthy" lend money to poor people with bad credit and low income. Then, when said poor people default on the mortgages, it is the wealthy's fault? Which is it? That they wouldn't loan them money or that they did (with government coercion, no less)?
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power"-- Mussolini
OK, if we are going to quote Mussolini as a great political scientist, let's extrapolate on this a bit. Who created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the true "merger of state and corporate power" in this crisis? Democrats. Who further extended this by creating the CRA? Democrats. Who expanded its mission into accusing bankers of racism ("redlining") and extorting them to make more bad loans, or else be investigated? Democrats. Who ignored warnings and blocked efforts at reform in 2003? Who killed efforts at GOP reform of the FMs in 2005? Democrats. What party was Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee who took millions in lobbying money from the financial services industry and got sweetheart loan deals a member of? Democrats. What party was the guy who was boning the assistant director of Fannie Mae while he was on the House Financial Services Committee a member of? Democrats.
Funny, I see a lot of suspects that your oh-so-insightful post left out.
But don't worry. help is on the way. Barack Obama, who also got a sweetheart loan deal, will be sure critics can't speak out against him. He will define truth, just as Orwell predicted, since the media is asleep at the switch. What party is he from?
Whoever modded parent as "insightful" are all so busy slamming Fox News that you don't even know who is responsible for all of this. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
So basically, George Bush redefines conservatism and that makes me less conservative than Ralph Nader? I've been railing on Bush's spending and big-government "conservatism" for years.
How, exactly, is my ideology tied to George W Bush's?
Yes, it's a long article. It will require you to think and understand. That's how learning occurs.
And how is linking to the LA Times and Wikipedia and the Wall Street Journal "sticking to Fox News Bullet points"? I guess the truth hurts. Apparently you didn't take your own advice on how learning occurs and didn't read my links, and just made ad hominem attacks against me. Instead, you ignored my links and what they said and just posted some random story about how Bush is not Reagan. Yeah, thanks, I already knew that.
They can't accept the fact that the free market is what caused this mess.
Wait, what? What a stunning display of ignorance of how the whole subprime lending system worked. In a "free market" the government does not intervene. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government sponsored enterprises (AKA, "ATMs"), are no more "free market" than the post office. In this "free market," both FMs artificially inflated both credit and housing markets (just as government student loan programs have done to tuition) by pouring money into the system, and representing to the banks "don't worry, we are backed by Uncle Sam, what could go wrong?". In a "free market", government regulations like mark-to-market, which caused massive bank paper losses, don't exist. In a "free market," you don't have a CRA telling lenders how they have to loan their money. In a "free market" you don't have corrupt senators like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who are on important congressional banking oversight committees (which themselves wouldn't exist in a "free market"), leaning on lenders to make subprime loans, and fighting attempts to reign in these out-of-control Government-Sponsored Monstrosities..
Here's what Chuck Schumer said back in 2003, when Republicans wanted more oversight of said Government-Sponsored Monstrosities:
Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.
Source.
So Schumer himself opposed reform on the grounds that the "free market" is the wrong approach. Massive government intervention and regulation was the status quo. But now it is the "free market's" fault? WTF?
Yeah, sounds like a "free market" alright. Just like public housing is a free market.
They're not dumb, they're just evil.
This is the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think libs are well-meaning but horribly misguided. Liberals think conservatives are evil (and this gets modded as insightful rather than flamebait!). And it's the conservatives who are "intolerant."
For the record, it was Democrats who got us in this mess, not Republicans. Democrats created these government-sponsored ATMs (Freddie and Fannie), the CRA, and your fair-and-balanced media won't report on Chris Dodd's and Barney Frank's (sorry, only Fox News is reporting this one, so had to use them) ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, how those government sponsored enterprises acted as ATMs, and how Dems forced banks to lend to those with bad credit. And how they fought John McCain's 2005 home mortgage reform bill. But now it's Republicans' fault? THIS IS A GOVERNMENT-CREATED PROBLEM that Republicans tried to regulate and Democrats wanted unregulated. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
The lack of reporting on what really caused this scandal is a scandal in itself. Reading these threads shows me how the media has not done its job.
BTW, "pursuit of happiness?" Now we are citing the Declaration of Independence as law?
I'd sure as hell hope so. That whole intent thing is important, at least to me.
Of course it's important, but the Declaration of Independence has no legal weight. It is a political document. You can't cite it in court. Any high school American Government teacher would tell you that. Did you miss that day? Oh, and if you care about intent of the Framers, there is that "liberty" part as well. The Framers would be rolling over in their graves to learn the government actually has the power to set aside voluntary private contracts so easily. They felt so strongly about contracts being inviolable that they wrote it into the Constitution (which is actually citable in court as law). How's that for intent?
For the record, I teach business law and political science, so I'm not just talking out of my ass here.
Umm, warranty law specifically makes reference to it being illegal for a vendor to sell a product and require a service tie-in. Just what part of the law would you really know, sir? Magnusson-Moss had lots more in it than just warranty.
Great, another jailhouse Slashdot lawyer. Well I am an actual lawyer, since you called out my knowledge. As Stu points out, MMWA, as the name suggests, is a restriction on warranty law, not tying products and services together, which celcos have been doing for years, Sparky.
As is typical here, Slashdot submitters and commentators, so critical of judges not knowing tech, know nothing about how the law works. A 12b(6) motion is Apple arguing "you cannot sue for that." The motion is challenging solely on legal grounds - for the purposes of the law, all the facts are considered true. In other words, the facts aren't even being considered in a 12b(6) hearing. The motion was denied, but that is a long, long way from the plaintiffs winning. And they will likely lose a summary judgment, which considers the facts, or lack of them, supporting the suit.
Disclaimer: IAALBNYL. (I am a lawyer but not your lawyer) This is not legal advice, so don't rely on it. Not that you can tell most of the know-it-all jerks on Slashdot anything anyway. If you told them the time of day they'd probably argue with you. But I digress. Do not rely on this as legal advice.
Unfortunately, Apple only allows them to buy iPhones tied to a service, which is in contravention of the MM Warranty Act.
According to who, the plaintiffs in the case? You? All the major cell carriers in America have been doing this for years. It allows the celcos to subsidize the high price of phone hardware. Show me case law that interprets MMWA this way. This is a lawsuit that survived a 12b(6), which is a long, long way from winning on the merits.
Not warranty law. No way Apple loses this case, at least not on tying grounds, no matter what a smartass jailhouse lawyer you like to pretend to be on Slashdot.
Or more importantly, Apple's stockholders' rights? Or are only your "rights" absolute?
I hope you enjoy $600 phones, because that is what iphones will cost when they are no longer subsidized by the cellcos.
BTW, "pursuit of happiness?" Now we are citing the Declaration of Independence as law?
Too bad the judge bought it. The relevant market under antitrust law is PDAs, not Apple's own OS. And Apple doesn't have a monopoly on PDAs.
As an Apple stockholder, I wish people would either buy iphones or not. Instead, they voluntarily enter a contract for a hugely subsidized phone, and then sue. All this kind of lawsuit crap is going to do is drive up the prices of phones, leading to less innovation (who's going to buy a $600 phone?).
I thought people here were libertarians? I guess there's a lot of libertarian for me, nanny state for you libertarians out there.
Seriously? Are you serious? Because there's an f'ing law against artificially tying products to services. It's illegal under current legal definitions because there's a law against it. Jesus.
No, there's only a law against tying if the party doing it has a dominant market share. The relevant market here is PDA phones, and Apple sure as hell doesn't have a monopoly in the PDA market. Maybe you should know your law before you start railing on others.