Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Fannie and Freddie are NOT at the heart of the mortgage crisis. Even AFTER the Fannie/Freddie bailout, the crisis continued to spiral out of control. Let me put it in terms you might understand: If you've plugged one hole in the dike but the water keeps rising faster and faster, obviously you haven't plugged the BIG hole. Yes, Fannie and Freddie were a problem. But they weren't the sole problem, and not even the biggest problem.

Interestingly though, I found this on a business website (Bloomberg) while researching Fannie/Freddie's role.

Quote:

---

The companies {Fannie and Freddie} said they were urged to increase purchases of subprime debt by the Bush administration. The Department of Housing and Urban Development said in 2005 that Fannie and Freddie should increase financing for low-income areas or moderate-income regions with high minority populations to 37 percent of new business from 34 percent in 2001 through 2004. That rose to 39 percent last year.

---

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

---

Quote:

---

My word Marcia, that might be THE dumbest thing ever posted on this here message board.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Orginally posted by AuRaptor:


Wrong Sig, all you do is take a quote and then misapply it weeks , months, years later. That's the only way you can claim victory in anything. If I say it was sunny one Saturday 2 yrs ago, and then a hurricane hits on a Saturday this week, you take my dated remarks utterly out of context and claim I don't know what I'm talking about, or that I'm some how " lying ".


Wait a minute. Wasn't there SOMEONE on this board just this week throwing out old quotes and applying them to today?

Who WAS that that was doing that? I can't seem to remember...

---

Quote:

---

Lots left to do, and one is thing is to make sure this shit doesn't happen again.

---

Quote:

---

SEC. 117. CARBON AUDIT OF THE TAX CODE.

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects.

www.infowars.com/?p=5044

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
So ... even if you went to a government school; hell, even if you vote for Democrats you can see that under Resolution 678 the United States, a Member State of the United Nations, has the authority under that resolution, and under 687 and 1441 to kick Saddam to the curb.

---

You stupid, stupid little child.
Governments the world over have the 'right' to do all manner of things.
Saddam had the 'right' to gas Kurds.

Right doesn't make right....er, well you know what I mean.

Actually, no you don't.



Effueisall

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:


You'll go crawling back under the woodpile, only to emerge later with the same brainless tripe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Farce-laden, brainless tripe, Signy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

There, fixed that for you.

---

Quote:

---

wtf is 'fictionalizing' wealth?

I have $120 million dollars in my bank account.....REALLY!

Chrissy, you're an idiot when it comes to economics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

wtf is 'fictionalizing' wealth?

I have $120 million dollars in my bank account.....REALLY!

Chrissy, you're an idiot when it comes to economics.

---

Look up "Enron" when you get a chance. I even spelled it out for you. That's one classic example of fictionalizing wealth. And yes, they essentially DID say "I have $120 million dollars [sic] in my bank account... REALLY!"

Apparently, when it comes to economics, you're even more of an idiot than your candidate.

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

---

Quote:

---

“We have a good deal of comfort about the capital cushions at these firms at the moment.” — Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, March 11, 2008.

As rumors swirled that Bear Stearns faced imminent collapse in early March, Christopher Cox was told by his staff that Bear Stearns had $17 billion in cash and other assets — more than enough to weather the storm. Drained of most of its cash three days later, Bear Stearns was forced into a hastily arranged marriage with JPMorgan Chase — backed by a $29 billion taxpayer dowry. Within six months, other lions of Wall Street would also either disappear or transform themselves to survive the financial maelstrom — Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection, and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley converted to commercial banks.

How could Mr. Cox have been so wrong?

Many events in Washington, on Wall Street and elsewhere around the country have led to what has been called the most serious financial crisis since the 1930s. But decisions made at a brief meeting on April 28, 2004, explain why the problems could spin out of control. The agency’s failure to follow through on those decisions also explains why Washington regulators did not see what was coming.

On that bright spring afternoon, the five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission met in a basement hearing room to consider an urgent plea by the big investment banks. They wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments.

The five investment banks led the charge, including Goldman Sachs, which was headed by Henry M. Paulson Jr. Two years later, he left to become Treasury secretary. A lone dissenter — a software consultant and expert on risk management — weighed in from Indiana with a two-page letter to warn the commission that the move was a grave mistake. He never heard back from Washington. One commissioner, Harvey J. Goldschmid, questioned the staff about the consequences of the proposed exemption. It would only be available for the largest firms, he was reassuringly told — those with assets greater than $5 billion.

“We’ve said these are the big guys,” Mr. Goldschmid said, provoking nervous laughter, “but that means if anything goes wrong, it’s going to be an awfully big mess.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Chrissy, you're an idiot when it comes to economics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:
The bottom line to a lot of this is just which politicians got the stolen money generated from Fannie, Freddie and all the others. Whether they got it personally as in the case of Obama financial advisor and party friend Franklin Raines ($ 90 million), or in political contributions, with Dodd & Obama coming in at numbers 1 and 2 in receiving Fannie Mae dirty money. Biden's mortgage deals and campaign donations from Countrywide are very interesting too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

How many Fannie lobbyists are there on McCain's staff?

And how much bailout money will Phil Gramm, McCain's economic advisor, be pocketing when UBS gets its share of the money?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

How many Fannie lobbyists are there on McCain's staff?

And how much bailout money will Phil Gramm, McCain's economic advisor, be pocketing when UBS gets its share of the money?

---

Yo, EC, you're interrupting Riverlove's partisan rant

Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:
And I can be a silly little pseudo-bully too when I'm feelin' all impish just like you, so here's a Bush Doctrine pre-empted shut up to you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:
And I can be a silly little pseudo-bully too when I'm feelin' all impish just like you, so here's a Bush Doctrine pre-empted shut up to you.

---

I bow to your creative and amusing smack down, RL.

Yeah, I can't deny that the Dems got their palms greased better on that mess, but nothing, NOTHING, can make me vote for a ticket that includes the brainless likes of Palin.

Sorryisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:
And I can be a silly little pseudo-bully too when I'm feelin' all impish just like you, so here's a Bush Doctrine pre-empted shut up to you.

---

I bow to your creative and amusing smack down, RL.

Yeah, I can't deny that the Dems got their palms greased better on that mess, but nothing, NOTHING, can make me vote for a ticket that includes the brainless likes of Palin.

Sorryisall

---

Make no mistake, I recognize and highly respect your enormous contributions to the history and fun of these boards, and despite many differences between us, I like everything you write. You have the gift.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron:
WHAT!? You two reconciled already!? Can't you go back to fighting? That was a lot more entertaining.

------------------------------

Trolls against McCain, you betcha!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Riverlove, you're an idiot. What can I say?

When you want to deal in facts, let me know.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

---