Powered by TypePad

« Ebbing And Flowing With Woody Allen | Main | Righties Gone Wild »

February 08, 2014

Comments

jimmyk

but it doesn't seem like we know what to do to STOP them.

Because enough Repukes are part of the problem that we never get a majority of righteous people, even if Republicans get control. We need to elect more people like Cruz and Gowdy and fewer squishes like McCain, Graham et al. I don't know how to do that, but there has to be at least agreement that we need to do it, as opposed to trying to get "electable" Rs who take us down the same road as the Ds.

boris

Where are all the black helicopters when you need one?

Truthbetold

Sue

No I do not. Do you?

Sue

TBT,

Why would you argue?

Ignatz

--Ignatz

Should I explain the global warming BS to you as well?--

As well?
You haven't explained anything to anyone.
I did however do you the courtesy of answering your previous question.
When you will you return the courtesy?

Truthbetold

Ignatz

God gave you a brain, use it!

Truthbetold

Ignatz worships at the altar of Gore.

Anyone else?

Ignatz

--Sue

No I do not. Do you?--

It is incontrovertible science that CO2 contributes X amount to the so called greenhouse effect. Man has released uncounted billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in the last few centuries so it is almost without question that man made global warming exists, especially since the temperature record indicates a slight warming over the last 100 years. How much of that is man made and how much natural variation is uncertain.
Now, feedbacks and other causes are not well understood at all, but almost certainly do not wholly cancel the extra CO2 that has been released.
And on top of that, agriculture and land use patterns have been shown to possibly have a slight warming effect as well.

Any anthropogenic increase is probably quite modest and is probably beneficial, especially since we are currently in an interglacial period of a continuing ice age which truly would be catastrophic were it to return, but it seems certain some small amount of man made global warming has occurred.
Why do you dismiss relatively simple and known science?

Truthbetold

Ignatz

You really are flat out stupid.

Truthbetold

Ignatz

Here's an idea. Follow the money!

Ignatz

Perhaps, but I await the refutation of anything I've said..
You're just the typical lazy troll who finds it much easier to toss insults and ask insipid questions.

What part of the NIST report is relevant to WTC 7, bright boy?
If you can't even answer that then what's the point?

Truthbetold

The NIST report is a joke.

You want so badly to believe your government that the truth won't matter to you.

Truthbetold

Ignatz

Have you ever heard of the Chicago Climate Exchange?

rse

Having finally caught up through what happens when TBT is commenting vs not, it is definitely interfering with the flow of the discussion. Ignoring it would help get this place back to normal.

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/collecting-student-data-to-practice-psychopolitics-on-a-massive-but-invisible-scale-without-consent/ is the new post.

To add to Rick's point borrowing money for an education that announces it's purpose is perspective alteration just means this country and others are truly lighting dollar bills afire. We are out the money spent on education and too many graduates remain unqualitfied for anything but a minimum wage job. They are the ones who do not know that because they know so litlle period.

Rick-so much of that research on the value of a college degree comes from a prof at G'town who is actually a Marxist labor economist if you trace him back far enough into the 70s. Carnevale.

Ignatz

FYI it's "a joke" does not constitute refutation.

Who made money off of blowing up WTC 7.
Smith Barney, because Salomon Bros were in WTC 7?
The NIST cause they needed the work?
Bush, because his bullhorn speech looked tougher with a building half the size and hundreds of feet away blown up?
The Jews, because they own all the insurance companies that had to pay for the damage?
The Saudis because they wear towels on their heads?
The Pentagon and the neo cons because they wanted war and the WTC being hit by planes would not have been sufficient; only WTC 7?

To quote another Solomon who didn't have his offices at that benighted sacrificial building, from Ecclesiastes;
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:"
You are out of your mind.

Truthbetold

rse

The truth really interferes with the flow around here.

Jane-Rebel Alliance1

Today is February 9th, it is officially "Ignore TBT" Day. Please heed the tradition.

Captain Hate

Laura Ingraham just stomped the fat asses of George Will, Julie Pace, Juan Williams and Chris Wallace into squishy mudholes over immigration "reform". I've had my problems with Laura before but I can't think of Bruce or Levin (well maybe Mark would have) making a better argument.

Truthbetold

Ignatz

The funny thing is, you think you're making a strong case.

Threadkiller

 "F&F knew, or at suspected, that there was "gambling going on," but didn't care"

I agreed to this notion, Jimmy. But my complaint still stands.

If a cop watches a murder take place and does nothing about it does that mean the murderer did not commit a crime?


"what about more principled banks that refused to make substandard loans?"

Clarice, IIRC GMax ran or worked at a high level of such a principled bank. He and his investors did just fine.

What you have now is a govt that obviously stood by, a group of lenders that obviously broke even the lamest rules, a group of investors that are winning lawsuits for the illegal products, and a bunch of stupid homeowners that should have known better because "heads they win, tails the taxpayers lose."

Truthbetold

Jane

Clarice never told you what the "Plame hoax" was. Do you still want to know?

anonamom

Jane declared today TBT Free Day last night--
let's abide by the ladies's feelings today.

(I am making lady plural intentionally--I'll support that, as does rse)

Re: getting anything done by Rs.
I happened to notice that the three people testifying in last week's IRS hearings were female. (Attractive and blond too)

One of the Reps made the comment in closing to watch out for MOMS--Mothers on the March.

Obviously, one doesn't need to be a mom to make something happen, or even a female--but perhaps men have been so demonized by MSM that it is going to be woman who can present the facts and be heard by those crucial "independent" voters who determine our elections.

And it does refute the "War on Woman" carp too.

Truthbetold

Hillary will love your logic.

henry

Anonamom, MOMS would make a good rebranding of the Tea Party, same people so nothing but the brand would change. Then the Dems & squishes could launch a War on MOMS with backing from the MSM. I think the muddle could figure that one out.

narciso

One is reminded that Gorelick turned around and represented one of the defendants in the 9/11 class action suits, a prominent Saudi banker, did she do it with information she gleaned from her role in the commission,

there was a much larger support network for the hijackers, then we first surmised, I sort of scoffed at Bob Graham initially, on this point but from Awlaki on the west coast, to Ghezzawi on the GulF Coast to even some in Patterson NJ, it stands to reason why would there not be some in certain financial circles, that novel,
the Devil's Banker, by a former Swiss
banker, made me think of this,

Truthbetold

Henry

Great strategy. Let the progressives define the issues again. Follow them wherever they want you to go. Let's make 2016 all about woman.

Ignatz

--What you have now is a govt that obviously stood by, a group of lenders that obviously broke even the lamest rules...--

Banks and mortgage brokers do have discretion in how they lend and who they lend to. Risk is not all codified in the law somewhere, nor should it be. Most of what the banks and brokers did comes under the heading of stupidity and the madness of crowds. Some was fraudulent, most wasn't. The most commonly fraudulent tactic appeared to be stated income loans where the borrower was commonly the most dishonest party to the transaction. Lending standards declined but that for the most part was a symptom of a sick, irrationally exuberant (to coin a phrase) system not a crime.
Were the MBSs bad investments? Yep. Were they fraudulent? Some possibly but less than many believe.

Nor does settling a suit indicate anything about the merits of it. I once paid a person $5000 not to sue me for an utterly phony suit because it would have cost me four or five times that to prove it was phony.

If the government hands out free money and sets up large corporations to take the loans made with the free money and back them with implicit guarantees bad things will always result. The fundamental problem, as usual, was the distortion and manipulation of free markets by the government.

Miss Marple

For the life of me, I cannot understand why we are not making this college loan scam a big deal.

The only people who have made any efforts about this are Governor Perry (who pushed the colleges to offer a $10,000 degree with limited success) and former Governor Mitch Daniels, who at Purdue has frozen tuition. (The students love him but the faculty hates him. He goes to every football and basketball game and the students cheer him and the faculty grits its teeth.)

How many students are still working to pay off loans which funded Elizabeth Warren's exorbitant salary at Harvard ($300,000) for teaching ONE class?

This is an easily understood rip-off. We have a group of resentful Millenials who are looking to punish someone. I think we should give them a target.

Truthbetold

Ignatz

The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

guardian ally

TBT plays with y'all cuz it's common knowledge JOMers tend to play loosey-goosey with untoward facts.

It's about what HASN'T been said.

http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/testimony_cbc2005.html#building7

"The Commission also omitted many vital facts about the collapse of building 7. This collapse is especially important, because the collapses of the Twin Towers are usually attributed partly to the impact of the airplanes, but building 7 was not struck by a plane and yet it collapsed in essentially the same way, showing all the signs of a controlled demolition. The Commission did not mention these facts.

It also did not mention that firefighters were removed from building 7 several hours in advance because someone spread word that it was going to collapse, even though there were, according to all available photographs, fires on only a few of this building's 47 floors. The Commission again could have included some interesting quotations from the 9/11 oral histories. For example, Decosta Wright, a medical technician, said: 'I think the fourth floor was on fire. . . . [W]e were like, are you guys going to put that fire out'' Chief Thomas McCarthy said: '[T]hey were waiting for 7 World Trade to come down. . . . They had . . . fire on three separate floors . . . , just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.'' But the Commission says nothing about this decision not to fight the fires, based on advance knowledge that the building was going to collapse.

The Commission also did not mention that Larry Silverstein, the building's owner, said on a PBS show that he and the 'fire department commander' decided it would be best to 'pull' the building, after which 'we watched the building collapse.'

The Commission avoided pointing out any of these things by simply not finding any room in its 571-page book to mention the fact that building 7 collapsed---even though it was supposedly the first large steel-frame building in history to collapse from fire alone.

Account Deleted

RSE,

WRT your current post - take a look at the Chetty paper to get a feel for the current level of information exchange between Big Brother (IRS-SOI detailed info based on inter-generational tracking of SSNs) and the educrat mindwreckers. The IRS requirement that claimed dependents be identified via their SSN allows a deeper level of tracking than was ever possible before.

The NCES report is a nice example of creative opacity. It never quite gets around to aligning area of study and economic outcome and it continues to conflate indoctrinators certificates with Master's degrees. It also unintentionally highlights the fact indoctrination is the field with the highest debt levels.

I'm curious as to what the NCES is hiding by using quartile division rather than the standard quintile division used in economic reports. I'm pretty sure it ain't better outcomes right around the middle of the distribution.

guardian ally

http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Building7Collapse.shtml

.

jimmyk

I had a brilliant post that disappeared, but now I see that Iggy made similar points at 11:40. My post said that a lot of what banks did in their was not in technical violation of anything, and in fact was encouraged. The key element of the story is that the government set up a system to enrich its cronies at taxpayer risk (in the heads I win-tails you lose sense), and banks took (mostly legal) advantage of it. Not admirable, but that's what happens in corrupt systems.

Threadkiller
Some was fraudulent, most wasn't. The most commonly fraudulent tactic appeared to be stated income loans where the borrower was commonly the most dishonest party to the transaction.

This is false. The stated income loans were dependent on two things. First, the property had to appraise for a value high enough for the deal to be negotiable, second, the borrower had to state that they had an income that could cover the loan.

In order for the mortgage fraud scheme to work properly, both Countrywide and LandSafe had to work in conjunction. Countrywide sent each of their home appraisals through LandSafe for evaluation. According to Lagow, LandSafe would provide the appraisal value at whatever price Countrywide requested.  In some instances, appraisals were inflated by over $80,000 per property. As a result, the FHA ended up insuring home mortgages under false pretexts and the government was eventually forced to repay Countrywide at falsely inflated amounts when borrowers defaulted.

According to Lagow, Countrywide would put pressure on its home appraisers, encouraging them to over-inflate home values. This was allegedly done so Countrywide could obtain larger federal loans and rake in a larger overall profit. In return for participating in the mortgage fraud scheme, Countrywide would pay its appraisers above-market fees. Lagow also claimed the lender would highly reward those appraisers who produced upwards of 400 appraisals and reviews a month. In reality, when done properly and legally, an employee could never achieve such a high number of appraisals in a one month period.

http://bergermontague.com/blog/index.php/countrywide-whistleblower-receives-14-5-million-in-mortgage-fraud-case/

To say the homeowner was the most dishonest is a stretch. I am not saying they aren't culpable, but I do believe they were pawns.

Truthbetold

Ignatz

Are you going to respond to the wealth of information guardian ally has just shared with you?

Threadkiller

Think of the cascade effect of the nation's largest lender arbitrarily inflating appraisals. Once this started the recently sold 'comps' took over.

The housing boom was nothing more than a scheme. When the stupid homeowners took out 110% of a falsely inflated home value they then spent that money in the bitchin economy.

We all liked the good times when these dummies brought their borrowed money into our businesses and spent it like mad.

Now that they are broke? Not so much.

Ignatz

--The Commission also did not mention that Larry Silverstein, the building's owner, said on a PBS show that he and the 'fire department commander' decided it would be best to 'pull' the building, after which 'we watched the building collapse.'--

Bald faced lie. "Pull" was in reference to pulling the firefighters and the attempt to extinguish the fires because it was becoming unsafe and the fire suppression efforts were obviously futile.

--and yet it collapsed in essentially the same way, showing all the signs of a controlled demolition--

Ditto. There is not a single shred of evidence of a controlled demolition other than the building fell down.

--But the Commission says nothing about this decision not to fight the fires, based on advance knowledge that the building was going to collapse.--

Ditto again. It was based on a gigantic 20 story gash in the side of the building caused by debris from the WTC collapse, a perceived ominous bulge by the firefighters on that side of the building and a relative lack of resources to put the fire out. They didn't have advance knowledge; they had real time fears in a chaotic situation, fears that proved quite justified.

--even though it was supposedly the first large steel-frame building in history to collapse from fire alone.--

The shuttle Challenger was the first shuttle to blow up. Were the o rings sabotaged?
Apollo One was the first US rocket to catch fire on the ground and kill the astronauts.
Did the KGB do it?
The Titanic was the first huge double hulled "unsinkable" liner to strike an iceberg and sink.
Were there controlled detonations deep in its hull?

My gut tells me these were all conspiracies; think I'll disregard what my brain, eyes, science, engineers and evidence tells me.

Who you gonna call? Feynman or TBT and Dana?

Truthbetold

TK

Do not forget the property tax part of that scheme.

Truthbetold

Ignatz

You are really doing yourself proud now.

guardian ally

Firefighter eyewitness accounts acknowledge the gash but insist the building was listing 20 degrees, so that explains how 7 dropped straight down into in's own footprint.

Miss Marple

Isin't the same thing happening with the college oans? Students who are easily signed up for them because they are gullible on financial reality and employment chances much like the homeowners who saw a new house without understanding about interest and property taxes and maintenance.

So they have borrowed money for a high-priced inferior product (much like the homeowners borrowed for inflated cost homes) with the idea they will get a reasonable job when they graduate (much like the risky homeoowners thought that the property would always inflate).

The only difference is that the homeowners could let the property go back to the bank and take off for parts unknown, whereas the students cannot return their degrees and are on permanent indenture to the government.

Ignatz


--To say the homeowner was the most dishonest is a stretch. I am not saying they aren't culpable, but I do believe they were pawns.--

I got news for you TK.
Real estate appraisals are and always have been for the most part a racket. Top appraisers are designated MAIs. The joke in the industry is it stands for Made As Indicated.
Moreover an appraiser is pretty much bound by market comps, so even if he believes a property is overvalued, if the comps are there what's he supposed to do?

But the borrowers lied incessantly (I know, and I suspect most of us do, several of them) on the loans about their incomes. They weren't pawns, they were willing participants and free agents in fraud, and their fraud was the essential one without which none of the rest could occur.
Stupid (former) homeowners.

Truthbetold

Ignatz

You really have an unhealthy love of government.

boris

In theory the housing bubble was an effort to move low income people into the middle class by encouraging them to buy a house, because owning a house was a middle class indicator.

The government changed the rules, enforced those changes, and made it clear they would provide a safe harbor from risk.

Given the options of being sued or going along ... the financial system went along and developed ways to make a buck in the process.

The aforementioned circumstances created a housing bubble ... a very very very long period of sustained increase in property values. Anybody sounding the alarm was scoffed at and ridiculed.

While many low income people got themselves into trouble, the middle and upper income brackets found they could take advantage of the new rules and the bubble. It was commonly said that if you took out a loan to buy a house, lived there for a few years, then sold and took out a loan to buy a bigger house, lived there for a few years, then sold and took out a loan to buy a bigger house, lived there for a few years, then sold ... you could buy a house on the profit free and clear.

In the meantime the dimorat party and cronies at the top of the pyramid were raking in big bucks.

Something that can't go on forever won't. All very fine to say shoulda coulda woulda and pick your favorite villain to blame but IMO that's FUBAR. You can't blame human nature for being human nature, especially when the original "well intentioned" FUBAR was so obviously FUBAR. But the people who did that were elected so seems to me the real problem was electing dimorats.

jimmyk

TK, I'd agree that Countrywide crossed the line into fraud. But there was this sort of thing going on [per Wiki]: "[T]he Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial as a "paragon" of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." This was in the early 2000s, I believe.

Ignatz

--Firefighter eyewitness accounts acknowledge the gash but insist the building was listing 20 degrees, so that explains how 7 dropped straight down into in's own footprint.--

Hmm, so the theory is a series of controlled detonations somehow righted a 20 degree list, dropping the building back into its footprint?

Here's a suggestion; listen to the guys with degrees in building and engineering actual buildings weighing thousands of tons and whose modeling and experience go beyond watching what happens when they push their Lego model of WTC 7 over and they make explodey sounds with their mouths.

Ignatz

--Ignatz

You really have an unhealthy love of government.--

I'm a libertarian who detests government in almost all its forms.
I have a healthy love of truth, sanity and common sense.
I have a healthy distrust of idiots, the irrational, nonsensical ideologues and nutters.

Truthbetold

Ignatz

Haven't you heard. The demolition companies have abandoned the use of explosives, and have adopted the method of controlled collapse via diesel fuel.

clarice

I remember it as Boris describes it.

guardian ally

"Hmm, so the theory is a series of controlled detonations somehow righted a 20 degree list, dropping the building back into its footprint?"

Makes just as much sense, don't it? No, wait. You actually found an engineer who thinks Alice and the Rabbit truly went down that hole. Hang onto that one.

Truthbetold

Then you remember it starting Jesse Jackson shake down style with the help of ACORN and others.

guardian ally

I know you claim the Libertarian mansuit, but the evidence is really, really thin. But you are logical, up to a point.

clarice

I also remember that ACORN and others mau maued the banks to give loans to those who otherwise wouldn't qualify for them and the feds refused to allow baks which didn't hand out money to the undeserving to open branches and expand.

rse

Rick,

NCES is located in Boulder, CO. Same place where NSF has located its efforts to use education to indoctrinate with respect to Climate Change. Called USGCRP.It's also where the Freudenthal Institute is located, having left Madison, WI for confines even further left or to be soon.

If there is one thing the ed schemers understand it is what excellent nitro dashed expectations coupled to life altering debt makes for igniting hoped for transformation.

Break it and then use the fact of breakage to get more money and authority to break more severely next time with even more people. All coming to a head.

Truthbetold

That's right Clarice, once again the government looking out for us.

narciso

Yes, take a bow, barry;

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0d2_1223594831

guardian ally

They only acknowledge conspiracies involving race and ethnicity.

Voter fraud. Kenyan poseurs. Gun grabbing soshulists.

It's all there in black and white; oh and brown, yellow etc.

Threadkiller

Did Gmax's bank suffer at the hands of Acorn?

I doubt it. I am reminded of a Reagan favorite: "If you are going to crawl into bed with government, don't expect a full night of sleep."

Under the "willing participants" category can we add the four dead Americans in Benghazi?

Maybe they deserved it.

rse

Rick-all of that is what the Carnegie funded Education Commission of the States is pushing with Pearson funding. ECS was created with Carnegie funding to drive state coordination around desired ed initiatives without running afoul of federal law. Back when people worried about such things. It is generally the ed committee chairs from house and senate in each state and someone from Gov's office. Each of them gets propagandized and regards themselves as being in the know. It's how OBE got pushed in 90s and the same memes on Common Core and career pathways now. As henry and I discussed a few weeks ago, it also means you can have a governor create a review committee and have everyone still reading from the same playbook.

guardian ally

Oh, and four dead in Benghazi; 45,000 dead americans in Iraq, not so much.

rse

How useful when ed becomes centered around monitoring student data. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/ceds/

IES was where bo desperately wanted former ATL super Bev Hall to serve even after cheating scandal broke in earnest. He knew she was well aware of the true purpose of K-12.

Threadkiller

"Real estate appraisals are and always have been for the most part a racket."

I wonder if the deceptive buyer was made aware of this prior to escrow closing?

I am certain the media covered this 'racket' vociferously at the time. I'll google it.

Miss Marple

This is still going on? Well, back to eBay.

Miss Marple

Oops. I am not referring to your discussion of the credit bubble, TK.

boris

"Maybe they deserved it"

As usual, dimorats exploited sympathy for the underclass to game the system and in the process the underclass gets a bum deal. I don't blame the underclass for trying to take advantage of what the dimorats were selling.

IMO the differences between the middle class and the underclass is not based on owning a house. There is probably good reason to suspect the real differences played a role when the underclass was not able to parlay the new rules into lasting economic improvement.

But helping them out was the purpose of the exercise from the get go and that came from the top.

Threadkiller

Helping them out was not the purpose, imo. I think the purpose was to get signatures on notes to create value for otherwise phony mortgage backed securities.

They were duped by licensed porfessionals.

jimmyk

But helping them out was the purpose of the exercise from the get go and that came from the top.

Well, I would say "Ostensibly helping them out," or something along those lines. The main purpose seemed to be to help themselves. I suppose some may have actually thought the poor would benefit in some lasting way, but for the most part it was a shakedown scam, and it's foolish to think the poor really benefit from that.

anonamom

Clarice, you remind me that when BoA merged with Fleet, they had to offer major money to people in Boston who I'm betting are no longer in possession of the homes they were suddenly qualified to purchase with mortgages from that bank in order to have the Feds sign off on the merger.

My true understanding of the incompetence of the Federal government in attempting to control the market comes from my experience with them in medicine, but as the biggest business in my town (until the recent unpleasantness) was banking, I've had a ringside seat to that as well.


From the official announcement:

"The two companies that came together today share hundreds of years of tradition in providing the capital resources that drive economic growth in America," said Kenneth D. Lewis, chief executive officer of Bank of America. "We share a commitment to helping American families and businesses pursue and achieve their dreams and to supporting the communities in which we do business. Our company will continue to embrace these traditions and take them to a higher standard for all whom we serve."

...Both companies have an outstanding history of community investment. To continue this tradition, Bank of America announced a new $750 billion community development commitment in January. The new goal builds on the outstanding track records of Bank of America and Fleet in delivering capital and credit to low- and moderate-income individuals, families and communities. The company additionally pledged that more than $100 billion of this new goal will be achieved through lending and investments in Fleet markets.

jimmyk

TK, I would bet GMax's bank complied with the CRA. If it behaved less opportunistically than others and came out ahead, that's great, but hindsight.

I like the Reagan line, but the Benghazi snark is off the mark.

boris

"the purpose was to get signatures on notes to create value for otherwise phony mortgage backed securities"

To the extent that happened it was pretty far downstream from changes in rules intended to help low income people, especially minorities, find their way into the middle class.

boris

"The main purpose seemed to be to help themselves"

Just so you know ... the following is an example of what often seems like your style of debate ...

Hey that's unfair!

What part of ...

As usual, dimorats exploited sympathy for the underclass to game the system and in the process the underclass gets a bum deal
... did you not understand?

Threadkiller

How far downstream?

Ignatz

Relatively few people in the middle of a bubble think they're in a bubble, including the financiers of it.
Afterward, everyone remembers that they in fact did know but neglected to mention it to anyone else.

When you lie about your income to obtain a loan you are one of the dupers not the dupee.
When you take out a loan that you know is more than you can afford you are duping yourself not being duped by someone else.

When you buy an appreciating asset because you think it will continue appreciating and sell it while it is, you are smart or lucky.
When you buy an appreciating asset that suddenly deflates, you are unlucky or stupid.
In neither case does your speculation make you a crook.

Now, the issue of MBSs and CDOs, bundling and insurance of them and the issue of governmental involvement are all complicated issues in which case there probably was some fraud but mostly there was simply a bubble mentality and irresponsible and unrealistic behavior and assumptions.

BTW it must be a slow news week if we're discussing 5, 10 and 20 year old issues like 9/11, housing bubbles and Woody Allen's creepiness.

Threadkiller

I did not really think of it as snark, jimmy.

These were adults that knowingly went to one of the most dangerous places on Earth and trusted their government.

Isn't the argument that would-be homeowners knowingly embarked of a scheme to defraud (heads they win) and trusted the government (tails taxpayers lose)?

boris

How far downstream?

I know that underwriting is often farmed out to independent operations that specialize in it.

Threadkiller

Banks shell out billions in penalties when they are guilty of bubble mentality.

Threadkiller

I argue that it was the head of the stream, boris.

Threadkiller

I am discussing the recent penalties the banks are paying for fraud.

That the criminal enterprise has been around so long shouldn't negate its current relevance.

Threadkiller

Later gang. Thanks for the invigorating conversation.

Time to reseal an engine.

henry

TK, maybe they are buying indulgences from the regulators.

Bori

TK
This is from 2005, Wachovia sued to use the looser federal guidelines rather than stricter States regulations.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/13/business/fi-banks13

To be fair, at a lot of the States wanted to have a larger say on who was getting the loans, as they had their own preferred constituencies.

Threadkiller

Keep in mind, Bori, what they are getting fined for is their failure to follow the less stringent guidelines and passing of junk as if they did.

Threadkiller

I absolutely agree, Henry.

anonamom

Ig, if we start talking about shark attacks, we are really desperate.

(Which some bright economist recently showed increase in a rising economy, hypothesizing that as more people are in the water at resorts areas where there are sharks.
And I bet tax dollars funded that study.)

Bori

TK
They made a deal with the Devil, profited from it, and then were protected by him. Now the Devil is asking for some payback.

I expect the same will happen with Insurance companies and ACA.

narciso

Actually the HMO, spawn of Ted Kennedy proves the point, it was the attempt to bend the cost curve that gave rise to 'preexisting conditions' and over time, a new bete noire was born,

jimmyk on iPhone

"Just so you know ... the following is an example of what often seems like your style of debate ..."

Hey that's unfair!"

Wow, not sure where that comes from. I doubt I've ever used those words in the 10 years or so I've been posting here, not to mention anywhere else. Maybe you've confused me with someone?

"What part of ...

As usual, dimorats exploited sympathy for the underclass to game the system and in the process the underclass gets a bum deal
... did you not understand?"

I was not commenting on that, but on the part where you (now twice) have stipulated that the purpose or intention was to help the underclass, as in

"But helping them out was the purpose of the exercise from the get go and that came from the top."

And

"changes in rules intended to help low income people, especially minorities, find their way into the middle class."

I thought it was kosher to express mild disagreement around here, but you obviously have some problem with my "style of debate" so I'll drop it.

black foot

Occasionally we get a genuine glimpse of that impeccable memory, and all the unfathomable factoids issuing forth from his over-rated expertise gets revealed for what it is....another passle of nonsense.

HMO's began with Dick and Kaiser.


This is a transcript of the 1971 conversation between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman that led to the HMO act of 1973:

John D. Ehrlichman: “On the … on the health business …”
President Nixon: “Yeah.”

Ehrlichman: “… we have now narrowed down the vice president’s problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser’s Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don’t think they’ll work, but if the President thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll support him a hundred percent.’”

President Nixon: “Well, what’s … what’s the judgment?”

Ehrlichman: “Well, everybody else’s judgment very strongly is that we go with it.”

President Nixon: “All right.”

Ehrlichman: “And, uh, uh, he’s the one holdout that we have in the whole office.”

President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not too keen on any of these damn medical programs.”

Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”
President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”

President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”

Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”

President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.”

Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”

President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”

President Nixon: “Not bad.”


boris

Wow, not sure where that comes from"

Not meant to be taken seriously.

Just an opportunity to illustrate a point about making more of a "mild" comment than it deserves. If you don't remember ever doing that then I can understand why it seems to come out of nowhere.

jimmyk

making more of a "mild" comment than it deserves.

I don't doubt that I've ever done that. :)

But the target is rarely the post or the poster, it's just an excuse to vent. In this case, I was just trying, however ineptly, to express the view that I no longer find "good intentions" an acceptable excuse for these help-the-poor policies. Fifty years ago that might have worked, but not today after fifty years of experience showing the effects of these policies.

I fully realize that may not have been your intent, or if it was, that it's a perfectly defensible view.

boris

Clearly "good intent" is how that stuff is sold to beneficiaries, and works to accuse objections of being "mean-spirited" or worse. And of course no doubt some cash was expected to flow once the scheme was up and running.

Of the 3, the middle one seems the most obnoxious to me. If 79% of government business is economically irresponsible then advocating responsible policy is by definition anti-government. The more "good intentions" they can implement the more they can claim the "mean party" wants to take it all away and can't be trusted in power.

NKonIPad

TK-- please provide copies of judicial judgments and/ or stipulations or settlement agreements wherein a MBS underwriting bank was found guilty of or admitted to 'fraud'.

Threadkiller

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/94320131119151031990622.pdf

Frau Edith Steingehirn

Curses Thai Pad!
Testing...

True the Vote
True the Government

Ignatz

Your link is cut off at page 11, TK.

Threadkiller

I have zero ambition to look further, Ig.

Tough day in the garage.

Ignatz

No problemo, TK.
I know the feeling.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame