Wow, a left-wing typepad blog? Really, that's the best you could come up with. It had to be the big, bad capitalists. We need more government to run things efficiently.
The murder rate doesn't bother me, even a little. It's confined to the areas occupied by the dregs of society, if they kill each other off, it's one less thing I'll be asked to pay for.
The collapse was caused by the creation of GSEs, and the subsequent congressional pressure on those GSEs to ensure loans could be make to poor people that couldn't afford to pay them back. Essentially Fannie and Freddy said, make a bad loan, and we'll buy it from you, because we think those people deserve loans. Without government regulation, the loans would have never been issued in the first place. Your pontificating about socialist wet dreams and rogue megacorporations is unwarranted.
Only an idiot incapable of taking care of themselves would want to live in a social welfare state.
I don't know about that. I switched to, and am still using, Chrome since it seems much faster. For many people, all they use their computer for is the web browser, so a faster browser could be significant.
Earlier it was just some prank to me, I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be, just like all of you anon out there that you think there was some missed opportunity of glory, well there WAS NOTHING, I read everything, every little blackberry confirmation, all the pictures, and there was nothing
There was no government business conducted from the account, moron.
The last time something like this happened, it was called Watergate. Nothing incriminating was actually found in that account, and it's naive to assume that off-the-record negotiation doesn't almost always occur before formal negotiation and voting.
Money does trickle down. Lets tell the story about a man named Jones. Jones gets a job out of college with a $60k base salary. He manages to keep his expenses low, and is able to save $50k within 2 years. In that time, Jones has managed to earn a significant promotion, and is now making $80k. Jones uses his savings as the down-payment for a house, and takes in 3 roommates to assist in paying the mortgage (money trickles down to Bank, Contractor, Realtor, Construction Equipment Manufacturer, Timber Mill, employees, etc...). Jones is still fiscally responsible, and with the help of the roommates, is able to pay off the house after about 5 years. Jones is now making $140k/year, and is the second in command at his company. He is only spending about $40k/year though. Jones decides to lend the excess money to a local bank, at 4% interest, by opening a Savings Account. With Jones's money, the bank is able to afford to make a loan to a man starting a small business. The man opens his business, is successful, and after a couple of years, repays the loan. The man has 20 employees, and Jones's money made their employment possible.
Jones decides that he wants to take his ~$350k out of the bank, and hires a financial planner. The financial planner of course profits from Jones's decision, as do all of the companies and their employees that the financial planner does business with. The financial planner purchases a diverse collection of mutual funds for Jones, with money trickling to the fund, the employees of the fund, and all the vendors that the fund uses (e.g. Paper Company, Microsoft, Janitorial Company, and their employees). Within 2 more years, Jones has amassed nearly $600k in savings, and his house is valued at $400k.
Jones decides that he wants to start a company to design, manufacture, market, and sell HyperWidgets. Jones is granted a business loan to purchase the capital equipment that he needs, although he has to personally guarantee the note with his home. Jones hires several employees, and the company begins to manufacture the HyperWidget, and starts making sales. 3 years later, Jones has spent $450k of the $600k he had saved, though the company is now breaking even. All the employees and contractors hired by Jones, as well as the companies they've hired, and their employees, and so on and so forth, benefit from Jones's investment.
1 year later, Jones is making enough to cover his personal expenses, and 2 years after that he's making an additional $150k/year above and beyond his expenses. During this time, Jones has hired more employees and purchased additional capital equipment, and additionally has continued to invest, with that money trickling through the market as well. During the third year though, market troubles cause a temporary cash-flow issue, and Jones makes the company a personal loan equivalent to a full years salary to cover the shortfall. His largest competitor, however, wasn't as fiscally responsible as Jones, and they are forced into bankruptcy. Jones is now the largest HyperWidget company, and sees their orders quintuple over the next year. Jones lends the company his entire savings to purchase the capital equipment, and the accounts, from his competitors bankruptcy auction at fire-sale rates. Jones then sells 10% of the company to a series of outside investors, and uses the incoming capital to hire additional staff to handle the additional work.
Jones HyperWidgets dominates the market for a few years, continuing to grow rapidly. Over time, Jones's salary has gone up, as have his dividends. His personal loans have also been repaid. Jones buys a number of competitors and suppliers, growing his enterprise vertically and horizontally. Jones is able to grow these companies as well, and eventually sells them to Jones HyperWidgets. When Jones HyperWidgets goes public, they have nearly $50M/year in revenue, are the dominant player in the HyperWidget market, and has nearly 1,000 employees.
Jones has amassed a personal fortune of nearly $300M from t
Why should someone have to pay to support a social program that they will never have to use? The rich are already paid significantly less SS benefits than the poor, so why should they have to pay to support the system? Why should success be punished?
Medicare is going to get substantially more expensive to support, and will ultimately prove to be unsustainable, once the baby boomers start to retire and require extraordinarily expensive medical care. The US is getting kind of top heavy, and it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to balance that weight.
While I agree with you about section 8 housing, I was talking about affordable housing in the context of forcing banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford it with a series of bad laws, corrupt government sponsored enterprises, and justice department pressure. The latest boondoggle to fail spectacularly to the tune of $700B. Tamper with the market realities at your peril.
Democrats blocked regulation in 2004, attacking the regulator, and defeated the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, cosponsored by John McCain. Barney Frank is in this neck deep, don't kid yourself. Democrats like Frank cried racism whenever the republicans suggested regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and had control of the house financial services committee which oversees the GSEs.
"I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing."
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) House Financial Services Committee hearing Sept. 10, 2003
"I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long- term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) July 14, 2008
"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."
John McCain May 26, 2006
Here are some additional quotes from the Fannie/Freddie Fraud Investigation in 2004
BAKER (R-LA): It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure.
WATERS (D-CA): Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.
MEEKS (D-NY): As well as the fact that I'm just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn't for you, I don't think that we'd be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we're faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you've given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they've done a tremendous job. There's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong, you know, with Fannie Mae! Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that -- that -- that -- that your agency uh, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I'm not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give -- you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don't need it.
ROYCE (R-CA): In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks.
I'm glad you posted this. There are reasons that people do the things that they do.
The other side of the golden parachute story is that occasionally CEOs with golden parachutes aren't brought in for the long term, but to act as a change agent to modify a distressed company based on their passed performance doing similar work. This is particularly true in the case of mergers or hostile takeovers, where the board will decide that it intends to merge, and will bring in a CEO specifically to facilitate the negotiation and aftermath. The CEO can take the majority of the heat for the layoffs that will be necessary to eliminate the redundant positions, and the profit loss caused by the expense of all the ensuing change. The golden parachute is necessary because there are a dearth of available positions that the CEO could potentially fill, and they will likely be unemployed for quite some time after the merger. That's one of the reasons the compensation package is generally close to 3 years salary.
Uhh, no. There are plenty of social programs that have been implemented going back to the 1930's that have failed/are in the process of failing (e.g social security, Medicare, affordable housing) that are opposed by conservatives. Today's progressives fight for what tomorrow's taxpayers will have to pay to fix.
I don't see why the current games don't help. IMHO, one of the most important things that you can learn from racing games is to be constantly aware of the positions of the vehicles around you, so you are able to react when they move.
I know when I drive, I am constantly aware of the type and visual appearance (maintenance state), lane position and relative speed, and driver alertness or potential impairment (e.g. swerving, tailgating, erratic braking). I attribute this, at least partially, to video games.
Given that the 9/11 attack hadn't happened yet, and knowing now that within 1 year 2,999 people would be killed in what would be the single deadliest terrorist attack in the history of the United States, causing over $1.4 TRILLION of economic damage within 7 days, do you believe that their may have been real, credible, terrorist threats at that time? Further, given that the al-Qaeda terrorist network, led by Osama Bin Laden, whose overall mission statement begins by quoting the Koran as saying, "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and concludes that it is the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere" was growing increasingly active, with the US Embassy Bombings and the attack of the USS Cole, would then have been an appropriate time to take a stand against terrorism?
Attacking a candidate for being anti-terrorism BEFORE the largest terrorist attack in history seems pretty stupid to me. Even if you could go back in time, and wish a little harder that it wouldn't happen, it would still happen. I'd rather have someone in office that has the foresight to see the writing on the wall and do something about it ahead of time.
That's an interesting thought. I guess the other side of it may be that as we've accumulated information and storage space has gotten vastly cheaper, we are no longer deleting anything. All the stuff from then is still there, plus all the additional crap, like somebody mentioning Napster on their blog, that's been added to the pile in the last 7 years.
Slashdot Mirror
So are Hillary's six thousand dollar pant-suits OK then?
Wow, a left-wing typepad blog? Really, that's the best you could come up with. It had to be the big, bad capitalists. We need more government to run things efficiently.
The murder rate doesn't bother me, even a little. It's confined to the areas occupied by the dregs of society, if they kill each other off, it's one less thing I'll be asked to pay for.
The collapse was caused by the creation of GSEs, and the subsequent congressional pressure on those GSEs to ensure loans could be make to poor people that couldn't afford to pay them back. Essentially Fannie and Freddy said, make a bad loan, and we'll buy it from you, because we think those people deserve loans. Without government regulation, the loans would have never been issued in the first place. Your pontificating about socialist wet dreams and rogue megacorporations is unwarranted.
Only an idiot incapable of taking care of themselves would want to live in a social welfare state.
Luckily, suburbs are widely being shown to be a failure.
Citation please. Not everyone wants to live in a box.
I don't know about that. I switched to, and am still using, Chrome since it seems much faster. For many people, all they use their computer for is the web browser, so a faster browser could be significant.
Majority of people still resistant to change. News at 11!
The reason I use chrome is because it's fast. Very, very fast. I'll take speed over plugins any day.
Earlier it was just some prank to me, I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be, just like all of you anon out there that you think there was some missed opportunity of glory, well there WAS NOTHING, I read everything, every little blackberry confirmation, all the pictures, and there was nothing
There was no government business conducted from the account, moron.
It's not illegal to have a private e-mail account, moron.
Not really relevant, since old persons don't use email. Just ask John McCain.
John McCain can't type because his arms were repeatedly broken by the Vietnamese while he was a POW. Why do you insult disabled veterans?
The last time something like this happened, it was called Watergate. Nothing incriminating was actually found in that account, and it's naive to assume that off-the-record negotiation doesn't almost always occur before formal negotiation and voting.
Money does trickle down. Lets tell the story about a man named Jones. Jones gets a job out of college with a $60k base salary. He manages to keep his expenses low, and is able to save $50k within 2 years. In that time, Jones has managed to earn a significant promotion, and is now making $80k. Jones uses his savings as the down-payment for a house, and takes in 3 roommates to assist in paying the mortgage (money trickles down to Bank, Contractor, Realtor, Construction Equipment Manufacturer, Timber Mill, employees, etc...). Jones is still fiscally responsible, and with the help of the roommates, is able to pay off the house after about 5 years. Jones is now making $140k/year, and is the second in command at his company. He is only spending about $40k/year though. Jones decides to lend the excess money to a local bank, at 4% interest, by opening a Savings Account. With Jones's money, the bank is able to afford to make a loan to a man starting a small business. The man opens his business, is successful, and after a couple of years, repays the loan. The man has 20 employees, and Jones's money made their employment possible.
Jones decides that he wants to take his ~$350k out of the bank, and hires a financial planner. The financial planner of course profits from Jones's decision, as do all of the companies and their employees that the financial planner does business with. The financial planner purchases a diverse collection of mutual funds for Jones, with money trickling to the fund, the employees of the fund, and all the vendors that the fund uses (e.g. Paper Company, Microsoft, Janitorial Company, and their employees). Within 2 more years, Jones has amassed nearly $600k in savings, and his house is valued at $400k.
Jones decides that he wants to start a company to design, manufacture, market, and sell HyperWidgets. Jones is granted a business loan to purchase the capital equipment that he needs, although he has to personally guarantee the note with his home. Jones hires several employees, and the company begins to manufacture the HyperWidget, and starts making sales. 3 years later, Jones has spent $450k of the $600k he had saved, though the company is now breaking even. All the employees and contractors hired by Jones, as well as the companies they've hired, and their employees, and so on and so forth, benefit from Jones's investment.
1 year later, Jones is making enough to cover his personal expenses, and 2 years after that he's making an additional $150k/year above and beyond his expenses. During this time, Jones has hired more employees and purchased additional capital equipment, and additionally has continued to invest, with that money trickling through the market as well. During the third year though, market troubles cause a temporary cash-flow issue, and Jones makes the company a personal loan equivalent to a full years salary to cover the shortfall. His largest competitor, however, wasn't as fiscally responsible as Jones, and they are forced into bankruptcy. Jones is now the largest HyperWidget company, and sees their orders quintuple over the next year. Jones lends the company his entire savings to purchase the capital equipment, and the accounts, from his competitors bankruptcy auction at fire-sale rates. Jones then sells 10% of the company to a series of outside investors, and uses the incoming capital to hire additional staff to handle the additional work.
Jones HyperWidgets dominates the market for a few years, continuing to grow rapidly. Over time, Jones's salary has gone up, as have his dividends. His personal loans have also been repaid. Jones buys a number of competitors and suppliers, growing his enterprise vertically and horizontally. Jones is able to grow these companies as well, and eventually sells them to Jones HyperWidgets. When Jones HyperWidgets goes public, they have nearly $50M/year in revenue, are the dominant player in the HyperWidget market, and has nearly 1,000 employees.
Jones has amassed a personal fortune of nearly $300M from t
Why should someone have to pay to support a social program that they will never have to use? The rich are already paid significantly less SS benefits than the poor, so why should they have to pay to support the system? Why should success be punished?
Medicare is going to get substantially more expensive to support, and will ultimately prove to be unsustainable, once the baby boomers start to retire and require extraordinarily expensive medical care. The US is getting kind of top heavy, and it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to balance that weight.
While I agree with you about section 8 housing, I was talking about affordable housing in the context of forcing banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford it with a series of bad laws, corrupt government sponsored enterprises, and justice department pressure. The latest boondoggle to fail spectacularly to the tune of $700B. Tamper with the market realities at your peril.
Here's a video showing everyone saying what they said, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs.
Raiding the fund definitely has something to do with it, as does multi-billion dollar feature creep and an unsustainable pyramid scheme structure.
Democrats blocked regulation in 2004, attacking the regulator, and defeated the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, cosponsored by John McCain. Barney Frank is in this neck deep, don't kid yourself. Democrats like Frank cried racism whenever the republicans suggested regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and had control of the house financial services committee which oversees the GSEs.
"I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a
threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out . But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing."
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.)
House Financial Services Committee hearing
Sept. 10, 2003
"I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long- term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.)
July 14, 2008
"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."
John McCain
May 26, 2006
Here are some additional quotes from the Fannie/Freddie Fraud Investigation in 2004
BAKER (R-LA): It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure.
WATERS (D-CA): Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.
MEEKS (D-NY): As well as the fact that I'm just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn't for you, I don't think that we'd be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we're faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you've given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they've done a tremendous job. There's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong, you know, with Fannie Mae! Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that -- that -- that -- that your agency uh, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I'm not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give -- you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don't need it.
ROYCE (R-CA): In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks.
CLAY (D-MO): This hearing is about the
I'm glad you posted this. There are reasons that people do the things that they do.
The other side of the golden parachute story is that occasionally CEOs with golden parachutes aren't brought in for the long term, but to act as a change agent to modify a distressed company based on their passed performance doing similar work. This is particularly true in the case of mergers or hostile takeovers, where the board will decide that it intends to merge, and will bring in a CEO specifically to facilitate the negotiation and aftermath. The CEO can take the majority of the heat for the layoffs that will be necessary to eliminate the redundant positions, and the profit loss caused by the expense of all the ensuing change. The golden parachute is necessary because there are a dearth of available positions that the CEO could potentially fill, and they will likely be unemployed for quite some time after the merger. That's one of the reasons the compensation package is generally close to 3 years salary.
Uhh, no. There are plenty of social programs that have been implemented going back to the 1930's that have failed/are in the process of failing (e.g social security, Medicare, affordable housing) that are opposed by conservatives. Today's progressives fight for what tomorrow's taxpayers will have to pay to fix.
57% of Prius buyers cited "Makes a statement about me", as the top reason for their purchase.
I don't see why the current games don't help. IMHO, one of the most important things that you can learn from racing games is to be constantly aware of the positions of the vehicles around you, so you are able to react when they move.
I know when I drive, I am constantly aware of the type and visual appearance (maintenance state), lane position and relative speed, and driver alertness or potential impairment (e.g. swerving, tailgating, erratic braking). I attribute this, at least partially, to video games.
Given that the 9/11 attack hadn't happened yet, and knowing now that within 1 year 2,999 people would be killed in what would be the single deadliest terrorist attack in the history of the United States, causing over $1.4 TRILLION of economic damage within 7 days, do you believe that their may have been real, credible, terrorist threats at that time? Further, given that the al-Qaeda terrorist network, led by Osama Bin Laden, whose overall mission statement begins by quoting the Koran as saying, "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and concludes that it is the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere" was growing increasingly active, with the US Embassy Bombings and the attack of the USS Cole, would then have been an appropriate time to take a stand against terrorism?
Attacking a candidate for being anti-terrorism BEFORE the largest terrorist attack in history seems pretty stupid to me. Even if you could go back in time, and wish a little harder that it wouldn't happen, it would still happen. I'd rather have someone in office that has the foresight to see the writing on the wall and do something about it ahead of time.
Results 1 - 10 of about 226,000 for john mccain. (0.01 seconds)
That's an interesting thought. I guess the other side of it may be that as we've accumulated information and storage space has gotten vastly cheaper, we are no longer deleting anything. All the stuff from then is still there, plus all the additional crap, like somebody mentioning Napster on their blog, that's been added to the pile in the last 7 years.
John McCain returns 226,000 results.