dagblog - Comments for "Obama is an evil man"

Fannie and Freddie were not

michael — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:14:40 +0000

In reply to This is going to be my last

Fannie and Freddie were not allowed to make subprime loans? Where did you get that????

Your own article:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication.

Did YOU read that???

The bottom line: Not a single Democrat except maybe Barney Frank lifted a finger to regulate the running away housing market, from 2000 until 2008. The hindsight is 20-20 of course, but many Republicans including McCain at least tried.

I will post Karl Marx quote when I find it. Convergence of private and common properties (in PHILOSOPHICAL sense) has nothing to do with surplus value and the rest of political economy which I am familiar with as well.

My words are easy to understand
And my actions are easy to perform
Yet no other can understand or perform them.
My words have meaning; my actions have reason;
Yet these cannot be known and I cannot be known.

Who understands the Way seems foolish
Great truth seems contradictory
Great cleverness seems stupid

Honest people use no rhetoric;
Rhetoric is not honesty.
Enlightened people are not cultured;
Culture is not enlightenment.

Who understands does not preach
Who preaches does not understand

--- Guilty, I like to preach sometimes. Nobody is perfect.

This is going to be my last

DF — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:27:18 +0000

In reply to Your

This is going to be my last comment on this thread:

One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

Did you read that? Here's the bottom line: While there certainly may have been arguments to have increased regulation or oversight with respect for Fannie and Freddie, they were better regulated than the rest of the industry. Their existence did not cause the housing bubble. The very term "subprime" refers precisely to the fact that the borrower did not qualify for a prime loan, which was defined by the very regulations governed by Fannie and Freddie. To wit: Fannie and Freddie were not allowed to make subprime loans; such a loan was outside of their purview by definition.

Now, for your other intimations. Let's review some facts. The Democratic Party gained majorities in Congress in the 2006 midterm elections, which took place in November of 2006. This means that the Democratic majority wasn't seated until the beginning of 2007. Do you mean to imply that the housing crisis is somehow the fault of the Democratically controlled Congress? Because that would seem to mean that none of the trouble started until the beginning of 2007 at the earliest. You yourself have given a timeline of 1992-2006 for the housing crisis. If that's true, how is the Democratic majority relevant?

Finally, you say that Obama received "kickbacks". Where's your proof of this? How is it relevant for a junior Senator who didn't take his seat until the beginning of 2005? Is Barack Obama also somehow responsible for the housing crisis?

I've read multiple translations of the Tao te Ching. I don't recall Lao Tsu ever equating incomprehensibility with wisdom, but I bet you're pretty fond of that gem. It's really all you've got. Barack Obama is a socialist, but why should that bother you, a self-avowed neo-Marxist, who was really a neo-capitalist, in the slightest? I must have also missed where Marx renounced his theory of surplus value. I'm sure you'll find me the quote, just like you've referenced everything else so well.

Up is down, black is white, 2 + 2 = 5.. and if people don't seem to understand all of this, that's because they can't keep up with your hyper-wisdom. Did I get that about right?

Your

michael — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:05:31 +0000

In reply to I dismiss what you've said

Your article:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

--------

Does it contradict any of my points?

Housing bubble was created by the government (using Fannie, Freddie, FHLB, low interest rates, and cheap credit) from 1992 to 2006. Starting in 2004, private banks, reassured by huge reserves of the aforementioned Fannie and Freddy (remember "implicit federal guarantee of their obligations"?), joined the fray and even overcome them by 2006.

Stupid politicians did nothing to prevent the looming disaster. Some Republicans and Barney Frank tried to stop the madness and create some oversight, but the rest, lobbied by Fannie, Freddie and private banks, just ignored it.

Question again: Who was in control of both Congress and Senate since 2006? And why they did exactly nothing?

Oh, well... I just rephrased

michael — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:29:30 +0000

In reply to According to Marx, the

Oh, well... I just rephrased a quote from Karl Marx... I will find the exact quote and post a link.

If that sounds funny to you, it is rather a problem with your understanding abilities.

Some developmentally challenged people (or what is the politically-correct term for retards?) find funny many ordinar things. They can laugh if you display them a finger.

Of course if you are much smarter than all previous philosophers combined, you can come up with another theory, but that's what Marx figured out: In philosophical sense, the categories of "private property" and "common property" are disappearing in the future and become one. That's close to Karl Marx exact wording.

I dismiss what you've said

DF — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:08:00 +0000

In reply to Don't have time to listen to

I dismiss what you've said because it's been largely unfounded and ridiculous. The facts that you've tried to offer have been offered without meaningful context, not to mention being part of a discussion that was put to bed last fall. 52% when? Where are your sources?

You said:

I will dismiss your link as a part of BIG LIE right away.

Who's dismissing who?

"Kickbacks" meaning what? Legal campaign contributions? Illegal bribes? Again: Sources?

Don't have time to listen to

michael — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:52:27 +0000

In reply to Again, your argument is

Don't have time to listen to talk radio. Take subway to work.

Interesting discussion we have. I readily admit that your points make some sense (of course private banks who joined the housing bubble were stupid), but you just dismiss whatever I say outright.

Some anecdotal evidence. I have quite a few friends and friends of my friends who are/were mortgage brokers, and they were told by the management: We must give sub-prime mortgages to any minority person. No credit history, no checks, no nothing. It was an offer they couldn't refuse. Pressure from regulators, pressure from minority activists, pressure from ACORN.

You do realize that ACORN used to boycott banks and to send thousands of protesters every time they refused to give a mortgage to a minority person?

Btw, who controlled the Senate and Congress since 2006? Who gave regular savings banks permissions to participate in housing market? Who let them to increase their leverage from 1 : 12 to 1 : 30? Who refused to create any kind of oversight despite cries from some Republicans and Barney Frank? And who received a lot of kickbacks from Fannie and Freddie? Why, your favorite people, Barack Obama and his pals.

Btw, 52% of sub-prime mortgages bought by Fannie and Freddie looks like a controlling share to me. All the other giant unregulated banks had only a few percents each.

According to Marx, the

DF — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:18:00 +0000

In reply to Glad you mentioned Karl Marx.

According to Marx, the capitalist society will PEACEFULLY evolve forever and ever. During that peaceful evolution, the control of people over private property will gradually increase until that private property will be in fact owned by workers, even if it will nominally remain private property.

Thank you. This is the funniest thing I've read all week.

Again, your argument is

DF — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:14:00 +0000

In reply to I will dismiss your link as a

Again, your argument is fundamentally flawed and the salient facts show that definitively. The "big lie" is yours. "Smaller private banks" is no way to describe the giant, unregulated investment banks that have gone the way of the dodo. Enjoy your parallel universe and talk radio.

I will dismiss your link as a

michael — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:06:41 +0000

In reply to Of course, people in the

I will dismiss your link as a part of BIG LIE right away.

"Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages."

Is Representative Barney Frank (D, MA) a conservative critic? Is Clinton administration Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets Gary Gensler a conservative critic? Is Representative Ed Markey (D, MA) a conservative critic?

Who was by far the biggest player in housing market? Who created the housing bubble? Who encouraged low-income and minority UNQUALIFIED buyers to buy houses?

Here you go (you forgot Federal Home Loan Bank, which was also a huge player, and a government-sponsored enterprise as well):

http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=9016

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Federal Home Loan Bank Mission, Regulation, and GSE Status

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks), are government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that were created by Congress to reduce the cost of housing credit and improve affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities. Through their Congressional charters, the GSEs receive federal privileges and legal exemptions that support the perception of an implicit federal guarantee of their obligations, which lowers GSE funding costs, allowing them to fulfill their charge by reducing the cost and increasing and ensuring the availability of financing for housing. Studies have shown that the GSEs lower mortgage rates by as much as 50 basis points, which NAHB estimates increases homeownership opportunities for approximately 2.2 million households.

--------

That's 2.2 millions unqualified buyers right here. People who should not buy a house they couldn't afford.

Fannie, Freddie and FHLB created a bubble, and then smaller private banks happily joined the gold rush. Remember the perception of an implicit federal guarantee of their obligations?

How many foreclosures do we have right now? 2.2 milllions sound about right.

Glad you mentioned Karl Marx.

michael — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:43:29 +0000

In reply to So, Alinksy is your enemy,

Glad you mentioned Karl Marx. I think a have read most all of his works and are kinda expert in Marxism.

I've read a few other books as well, like Nitche, Schopengauer, Hegel, Lao Tsu, Aristotle, Plato, Lenin, Hofstadter, Hawkins, just to name a few favorites.

Which period of Marx do you want to talk about?

Early Marx believed that capitalism will be replaced by communism, money will disappear, and that the violent communist revolution is unavoidable.

I have to disappoint you. Later in his life he came to realize that capitalism is the highest form of evolution of economy. It will NEVER be replaced by communism. There will be NO revolution. There will ALWAYS be private property, money, rich and poor. He was even called a traitor by more radical communists, I seem to remember.

According to Marx, the capitalist society will PEACEFULLY evolve forever and ever. During that peaceful evolution, the control of people over private property will gradually increase until that private property will be in fact owned by workers, even if it will nominally remain private property.

I am a Marxist, imagine that. I believe that is exactly what is happening in our society. Today's private property is not like your grand parents private property. We live in some kind of socialism already, just nobody calls it like that, and eventually we will live in some kind of communism. But money and private property will NEVER completely disappear.

Unlike so-called "socialism" as it was implemented by idiots-revolutioners in Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, capitalism in general is rewarding people according to their deeds. Those stupid revolutioners were bad pupils of Marxism, they didn't like his conclusions, they didn't want to wait for capitalism to peacefully evolve, and decided to build communism right away BY FORCE.

Big, big mistake.