Da King's Men - Latest Comments

Re: What's So Great About European Socialism ?

Harri Hauskalainen — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 05:06:22 -0000

Americans like to think that they held back the Soviet Union and that when Ronald Regan said "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall", he rolled over and obeyed him. The fact is that the communist states were in a terrible state economically and basically crumbled within. Yes, Russia could only just about put down revolts in Czechoslovakia and Hungary but the cost to them was huge. These countries and others lie Poland willingly walked into the arms of the European Union where true international cooperation prevails. In Afghanistan the Soviets were defeated. (In practice by Osama Bin Laden and friends who were armed by America, and Saddam Hussein himself received tacit support from America, but these are perhaps truths best forgotten). When the time came, the Soviet Union crumbled from within and Ronald Regan, bless him,. had nothing to do with it. America still spends more on its military than the rest of the world put together and the big reaction against America in much of the world is the direct result of American imperialism. You should read some of Chalmers Johnson's books for more insight into American Imperialism and its impending downfall. Whist it is undoubtedly true that Europe welcomes America's defense commitment to Europe, the level of that support is entirely for Americans themselves to determine. It would hardly make sense for Europeans to put their troops on American soil, so you have to recognize the geopolitical imbalance in the equation. Claiming glibly that there is some imbalance is hardly fair.

Re: What's So Great About European Socialism ?

Harri Hauskalainen — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 04:44:49 -0000

There is a big difference between socialism, communism and the increased amount of social protection that exists in Europe. There are no 100% socialist countries in Europe. We have mixed economies The social protection system is there because we recognize the difficulties that some people have at different phases of their lives and we therefore make that easier by ensuring that people pay taxes when they are earning which most will get back later in some form or other. Therefore the system meets our expenses when we are ill, such as medical expenses and our living expenses. Our students, who will earn better if they are educated, may get financial aid through their studying, both living expenses and tuition costs. Families get free or subsidized child care to enable them to go to work and which helps our kids to socialize with others. When we become old and infirm or dying we get services in our homes or elsewhere to ameliorate our condition. This is social protection and we don't get it for free. We pay for it willingly from our taxes because it we know it would be awful not to be able to afford to go to college if your parents were poor, or if we became terribly sick and and unable to work. American solutions to these problems are fraught with difficulty. Medical Insurance is perhaps the biggest scandal because (a) the insurers cream of a % of premiums as profit and therefore make more profit if premiums are high and (b) are incentivized to do the very opposite of insuring such as setting caps, exclusions, co-pays and lifetime limits which make profit for them easier to obtain yet makes it more likely that their customers do not get health care. It is no surprise to Europeans that American health care costs are 2-4 times higher than those in Europe. Loans may work but only if your career pays you back in salary and you are stuck if something happens which means that you cannot pay that loan back (a health problem perhaps). I live in Finland which has 100% state provided education (from Kindergarten thru to university and beyond into professional training. Our school are the best in the world and our people some of the best educated and skilled making ours a very productive economy. Indeed Finland and Sweden were ranked above Germany and the United States by the World Economic Forum for Global competitiveness. Some people in America think that the national government's only proper role is to protect the people from outside threats and criminal actions. But I have to let you know that life is full of many threats including from disease and poverty and from unscrupulous businesses, and in many European countries the people see the government's role as protecting their citizenry from these threats as well as outside threats. As for the claim that the United States pays for Europe's defense, that is just American propaganda. America invested heavily in Europe after the second world war and stationed troops in Europe more or less to protect its own investment. NATO is a mutual aid pact and most European countries contributed to America's retribution on Afghanistan for 9/11 as part of that commitment. So if you say America pays for European defense we can say the same about Europe defending America, even paying in the blood of our sons and daughters. Ireland's playing with low taxes actually contributed to the country's economic downfall. Finland on the other hand is strong economically because we always pay our taxes and repay our debts.

Re: Obama Violates Medicare Law…Again

Lacaliffa1288 — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:52:51 -0000

Sooooo, 5 years in a row the law has been "broken." President Obama has been in office for 3 years.........hmmmmm! Health care costs are ridiculous and the solution insurance companies have chosen is to negotiate lower costs for treating their customers. My husband's recent surgery was $37,000 and the hospital was actually paid less than 10% of that - similar deal for his various doctors. So, if hospitals can do that for insurance-covered patients, why can't they just reduce costs for everyone to something reasonable?

Re: Why Young People Vote For Democrats

Car wraps San Diego — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:28:57 -0000

Here at the San Diego Graphics Company, we make Roll Up trade show displays on low priced, cheap rates but at the same time making sure we're not compromising on quality. The billed amount will include, charges for the hardware involved, the printed artwork done. Roll up banners come in three different types. The regular single sided roll up and the rest charged for printing. The double sided roll up banners which are more frequently used these days,

Re: Green Jobs Status Update

Car wraps San Diego — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:28:50 -0000

The vinyl car wrap material can be heated around the bumpers and complex curves of the vehicle to cover the entire surface area. Your clients will never know it's not a paint job. You will though, when you go to re-sell the vehicle and all you have to do is have the wrap removed to reveal the manufacturer's paint job underneath, preserving the resale value of the car.

Re: The Big Lies Of Paul Krugman

remyngtin — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:23:42 -0000

CBO expected 30% + increase in costs while Krugman said there would be none , and Blue Cross/Blue Shield expects costs to rise by 54%

Krugman ... democrats biggest liar

Re: What's So Great About European Socialism ?

PAUL F — Wed, 30 May 2012 19:55:30 -0000

Obama is a Socialist at heart. He is a Black (half black) and believes America stole from minorities who built this country with their slave labor. He wants to ensure he has the ability to steal (excessive taxes) from the rich to create Govt socials programs that benefit the minorities and poor. He does not appear to have any reservations about cronies capitalism. He wastes taxpayer money or his favorites all the time such as Solyndra.

Anyone who believes we need more social programs aught to take notice of the deficit and our National Debt. We have spend over $13 trillion on the "war on poverty" since Johnson's Great Society measures...do we still have poor people? Why?

I say it is because the poor expect and get cradle to grave social benefits so why work to improve ones livelihood when one can get by at tax payers expense.

Re: What's So Great About European Socialism ?

PAUL F — Wed, 30 May 2012 19:47:01 -0000

Socialist or not, Obama's idelogy is cronie capitalism, wealth redistrubition, big Govt, big spending, big taxes and excessive regulation.

Obama is a loser and a very poor choice for President of the USA>

Re: About Da King

Car wraps San Diego — Thu, 24 May 2012 09:07:27 -0000

Nevertheless, even political entities such as John McCain and Ron Paul have to adhere to the same paradigm. Politicians use many ways to inform people about their future plans and projects. It has become imperative in the age of modern marketing and also because of media evolution it becomes almost mandatory for the politicians to promote themselves by any means.

Re: About Da King

Car wraps San Diego — Thu, 24 May 2012 09:07:19 -0000

Re: Weekly Political Wrap-Up

Car wraps San Diego — Wed, 16 May 2012 09:20:12 -0000

Car wraps are the funky advertising you see driving around your city. Car wraps are the manner in which the advertising is affixed to your car. Virtually unknown 10 years ago they are now quite common and very effective way of promoting business ideas. Of course, the wraps are not limited to cars there are truck wraps, trailer wraps, boat wraps, etc etc. However, for the purpose of this article, I will limit myself to car wraps.

Re: Eating The Rich

112012 — Wed, 16 May 2012 03:45:10 -0000

How did we know Saddom had weapons of mass destruction?

Re: Eating The Rich

barackem1 — Mon, 14 May 2012 12:37:15 -0000

test

Re: Bush Did Not Stop Looking For Bin Laden

Andrew — Thu, 03 May 2012 15:46:59 -0000

im an independent btw but more towards the left

Re: Bush Did Not Stop Looking For Bin Laden

Andrew — Thu, 03 May 2012 15:46:15 -0000

think of it as the fall of communist russia regan was at the right place at the right time but it wasnt him that brought it down but the constant fight against communism starting with the first leading all the way to regan all playing a part same story here different target different presidents all played their part all had the same focus dont you think obama would have prosecuted the agents and closed gitmo but he didnt.

Re: Eating The Rich

112012 — Thu, 03 May 2012 00:41:15 -0000

Typing is hardly yelling!!! Obama wishes he was as successful as Reagan!!! Clinton's goodtimes are being bought and paid for by the tax payers now!!! I can't believe your too stupid to see it!!! I don't remember Reagan signing NAFTA or the China free trade agreement either! Our jobs went over seas due to high corporate taxes and high labor costs! Raise taxes on the ritch and more factories will leave!!!!!! I don't remember gas over $4 a Gallon either!!! Gary Gnu your about as informative as Joe Biden!!! The Democrats hate Reagan because he was right!!! Reagan was a Republican last I heard!!!

Re: Eating The Rich

GaryGoddmn — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:18:26 -0000

Democrats use that point as an excuse to defend Obama. Not me.

The Obama admin is NOT doing it right because far from being a "socialist" or even pragmatic, he's listening to the ghost and economic heirs of Alan Greenspan (Bernanke, Rubin, Summers and Simpson & Bowles) because Obama is a Reagan Democrat and his cabinet is full of Reagan Democrats and the Democratic Leadership Committee (DLC) are all Reagan Democrats.

As Warren Mosler said, a purely FINANCIAL collapse should NEVER have been permitted to bleed over into the REAL economy of production and jobs, and he suggested to both the Tea Party and Occupy a cost-free plan that could restore the economy in a mere 60 Days.

Is is possible to for you to dispense with the partisan bickering and the triple explanation points after every "affirmation" you yell?!!!

Re: Eating The Rich

GaryGoddmn — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:16:10 -0000

deleted

Re: Eating The Rich

GaryGoddmn — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:15:55 -0000

I'm "admitting" the Clinton admin is to blame? Gawd, yer such a freak.

Yes, I've been strongly asserting for weeks now that the Clinton administration is to blame.

Can't we have a NORMAL conversation where we talk about FACTS instead of
one where you act as unpaid defender of the Republican Party?

It's not only disgusting, it's Stalinist thinking. TOTAL PARTY LOYALTY and willing to assert any lie.

What is Clinton "to blame" for?

For being a Reagan Democrat. For explicitly promoting a variation of Reaganomics called Rubinomics after Bob Rubin. For keeping Alan Greenspan. For explicitly moving the Democratic Party to the Right to chase Reagan and Big Business. For promoting outsourcing of American JOBS even beyond what Reagan accomplished, and at a different time in a dynamic world. For attacking Labor and workers in general, and attacking the poor, while subsidizing the Super Rich.

Reagan not only did attack American workers, he was *proud* of doing that. Clinton went on a similar rampage, while pretending to be a friend to American workers. (Clinton admin did not hide the fact that NAFTA would include some "winners" and also a lot of "losers". The losers are most American workers. NAFTA was written by Bush Sr.)

WIth regards to the main issue we've been discussing, YES, I am also attacking Clinton for signing ultra-Reaganite legislation to de-regulate Wall Street, which was written by Phil Gramm and two Republican cohorts, shortly before Gramm's wife Wendy got a job working for Kenny Boy Lay at Enron. Gramm left the Senate to lobby for a FOREIGN BANK, which wanted further deregulation, Union Bank of Switzerland, later sued by the United States for fraud or tax evasion.

Clinton fought as much as Reagan to "get government off our backs", actually to get government off Wall Street's back, not off the backs of the bottom 99% of Americans.

Following in the footsteps of Reagan, Clinton expanded the domestic fascist police state with ADEPA and other moves. ADEPA was the anti-CONSTITUTIONAL pre-cursor of Bush's PATRIOT Act.

Obama has gone beyond the PATRIOT Act and beyond Bush's global totalitarian DHS (as per Liberty Gun Rights) by signing the horrific National Defense Authorization Act.

WIth the NDAA, Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Richard Shelby (and 5 others) gave Barack OBAMA the power to imprison American citizens forever with no trial, and to murder American citizens with no trial.

YOU SAY, Bush "couldn't fix" Clinton's de-regulation frenzy of Wall Street speculation.
BUSH CONTINUED what Clinton began, and added more gasoline. Bush picked Tsy Sec Hank Paulson who is with Goldman Sachs and a close friend of Clinton's guy Robert Rubin. Bush was an extension of Clinton, Obama is an extension of Bush and Clinton, and all of them are a continuation of Reaganomics.

Obama is LIKEWISE a Reagan Democrat, that's what his policies are, The main difference is Obama is doing the mop-up of a debt bubble that is FIFTY TIMES BIGGER than the Great Depression, and attempting to do it within the rules of Reaganomics.

That's why Obama is a failure: Reaganomics.

Even the PhD FOUNDER of Reaganomics says that about both W Bush and Obama.

Now is not the time for Reaganomics, Roberts says, least of all hyper-Reaganomics as a Tea Party religion, because 2011 is not 1981. You might read What is Supply-Side Economics by Paul Craig Roberts, though I doubt you will try.
http://www.counterpunch.org/20...

Roberts problem with the Obama admin is the same as Occupy, same as the original Tea Party before the GOP hijacked it, and even the same as George Soros: BAILOUTS for the Wall Street CEO criminals.

The New Tea Party after the GOP takeover now seems to be in love with Wall Street bonuses paid for by Bailouts.

Re: Eating The Rich

GaryGoddmn — Tue, 01 May 2012 03:20:09 -0000

Fiscal and monetary policy in a liquidity trap
http://moslereconomics.com/201...

Mosler: for any reason, if private sector spending falls short of full employment levels, a fiscal adjustment can do the trick.

This raises an interesting question:

Is it ‘better’, for example, to facilitate the increase in spending through a private sector credit expansion [if private debt levels permit that], or through a TAX CUT [on the working class] that allows private sector spending to increase via increased income, or through a government spending increase [which is the same as a tax cut, in aggregate]?

The answer is entirely political. The output gap can be closed with any/some/all of those options. [which form of deficit and stimulus is preferred? a bigger private sector debt to banks, or tax cuts for whom, or increased spending to whom and for what?]

Wolf: there is a danger of what the great American economist, Irving Fisher called “debt deflation”: falling prices raise the real burden of [private] debt, making the economic contraction worse.

Wolf: “Fiscal austerity does not work in a liquidity trap and makes as much sense as putting an anorexic on a diet. Yet ‘diets’ are the very prescriptions that fiscal ‘austerians’ have imposed (or plan to impose) in the US, UK and eurozone. Austerians fail to realise, however, that everyone cannot save at the same time and that, in liquidity traps, the paradox of thrift and depression are fellow travellers that are functionally intertwined.”

[the non-govt sector cannot gain wealth == reduce indebtedness at the same time as the govt sector gains wealth == reduces deficits .. the non-govt vs govt sectors are a mirror of one another]

Mosler: Agreed for floating fx. Fixed fx is another story, where forced deflation via austerity does make the maths work, though most often at an impossible social cost.

["fixed fx" means a govt by fiat order tying money creation to Gold]

[the govt sector i.e. Treasury cannot literally "gain financial wealth" since it does not "have" money or "not have" money, it "issues" money, it is the scorekeeper, not one of the players]

Wolf: Experience over the last four years (not to mention Japan’s experience over the past 20 years) has demonstrated that governments operating with a (floating) currency do not suffer a constraint on their borrowing. The reason is that the private sector does not wish to borrow, but wants to cut its debt, instead. There is no crowding out.

Mosler: Right, because floating fx regimes are by design not liquidity constrained.

Wolf: Moreover, adjustment falls on the currency, not on the long-term rate of interest.

Mosler: Right, and again, unlike fixed fx.

Wolf: In the case of the US, foreigners also want to lend, partly in support of their mercantilist economic policies.

==>> Mosler: Actually, they want to accumulate dollar denominated financial assets, which we call lending.

Mosler: Note that both reserve balances at the Fed and securities account balances at the Fed (treasury securities) are simply dollar deposits at the Fed.
====================

Wolf: we know that recessions cause long-term economic costs. They lower investment dramatically: in the US, the investment rate fell by about 4 per cent of gross domestic product in the wake of the crisis.

Businesses are unwilling to invest, not because of some mystical loss of confidence, but because there is no demand.

Again, we know that high unemployment has a permanent impact on workers, both young and old. The US, in particular, seems to have slipped into European levels of separation from the labor force: that is to say, the unemployment rate is quite low, given the sharp fall in the rate of employment.
Workers have given up.

This is a social catastrophe in a country in which work is effectively the only form of welfare for people of working age.

==>> Mosler: Not to mention the lost real output which over the last decade has to be far HIGHER than the total combined real losses from all the WARS in history.

People who reject free lunches are fools: Liquidity trap – part II
http://moslereconomics.com/201...

====================

The Financial Exchange - WRKO AM Radio

Warren Mosler on the Economy and the FOMC Meeting
(patter before discussion)
http://audio.wrko.com/a/556525...

The German economy is suffering now ironically because of Austerity measures Germany insists on imposing on Greece.

Greece's debt today is largely due to the Greek govt purchasing the output of Germany in the past --- largely military exports --- which it has stopped buying --- causing a downturn in Germany.

Re: Eating The Rich

112012 — Tue, 01 May 2012 00:44:19 -0000

So your admitting that the Clinton administration is to blame! Thanks for proving my point Gary Gnu!!! We all see how really out of touch you are!!! So GWB couldn't fix all of Clinton's screw ups!!! We now know that Obama inherited a Bill Clinton catastrophe and I believe the majority of America sees it!!! As far as China being a Democracy? I think you've been eating too many magic mushrooms!!!

Re: Eating The Rich

GaryGoddmn — Tue, 01 May 2012 00:22:44 -0000

Republicans say Hell with the Tea Party and Side with Wall Street Banksters - (2010)

It is now only a matter of time before all the Tea Partiers realize they have been sold down the river by the Republican Party. [some ... others too stupid]

On Friday, in what was one of the cruelest ironies of fate to befall the Republican party, it was revealed that the Republican Party had decided to stand against any Wall Street reform and side with the Wall Street Banksters and an announcement was made that the SEC had leveled massive fraud charges against Goldman Sachs, one of the taxpayer bailout recipients.

Goldman's alleged scheme as described by the SEC was that they created risky mortgage-backed securities with the help of hedge fund manager John A. Paulson and then sold them as Triple-A rated mortgages to investors and at the same time bet against the stability of these mortgage-backed securities which resulted in billions of dollars of profits for Goldman Sach and about 1 billion dollars in losses for Goldman Sach investors.

Hedge fund manager Paulson netted about $5.7 billion between 2007 and 2008 during much of the country's financial collapse.

These two almost simultaneous announcements occurred only days after both Republican minority leaders John Cornyn and Mitch McConnell were caught meeting in secret with 25 multi-billionaire Wall Street executives and hedge fund managers.

Later as if on cue, the strings of Republican Senator Mitch McConnell were pulled by his Wall Street puppet masters and produced a televised press conference warning about the DANGERS OF REGULATING WALL STREET.

After that the Republican Party as a whole announced its intention to vote as a bloc to stop any reform of Wall Street currently being proposed.

Even though much of the current legislation has been proposed and written by Republicans.

http://www.opednews.com/articl...
====================

The Greatest Trade Ever
How hedge fund manager John Paulson bet against
the real estate bubble and made $15 billion in a single year.

In a span of just three years, hedge-fund manager John Paulson went from practically unknown to practically unparalleled. After a series of smart bets against the housing market made Paulson's hedge fund billions of dollars ---- including days where it made more than $1 billion ---- he earned a place alongside George SOROS and Warren BUFFETT as an oracle of investing.

[because he hired Goldman-Sachs to package a bunch of mutts and sell them as thoroughbreds]

And yet he wasn't a mortgage expert, or a real estate expert, and didn't have much background in the derivatives he used to make the bets, like credit-default swaps (CDS).

[when AIG couldn't cover all the CDSs it sold everywhere, its customers were screwed, until BUSH and HANK PAULSON bailed out AIG to "save capitalism with socialism", so John Paulson became a billionaire off WELFARE (wealth-fare?)]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/n...

====================

John Paulson Hedge Fund Sued For Negligence
(he invested in China)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Hedge fund manager John Paulson has been hailed as a finance sage for making billions betting against the subprime mortgages beloved by Wall Street in the run-up to the financial crisis. Lately the accolades have died down. His fund is facing losses and he's now the target of a lawsuit alleging incompetence.

As the Wall Street Journal reported, a lawsuit filed in federal court early Tuesday by Hugh F. Culverhouse ---- who happens to be a former U.S. prosecutor and son of longtime Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Hugh Culverhouse Sr. ----- accuses Paulson of gross negligence for pumping roughly $800 million of investors’ money into a company called the Sino-Forest Corporation -- which operates huge farms in CHINA that grow and harvest trees
[...]
Paulson famously made between $3 and $4 billion in 2007 by betting against the subprime mortgage market at around the same time that fervor for these loans ---- and the fancy bundles of securities that they were converted into by Wall Street banks --- was at its peak.
====================
And because of the unique structure of hedge funds, he'll collect 2%, or $450 million, for managing those assets, despite generating losses.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/1...

Re: Eating The Rich

GaryGoddmn — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:13:13 -0000

Bush Treasury (Hank Paulson) Overturns State Laws to stop Predatory Subprime Lending in 2004
This was not about the actual mortgages, it was the SECONDARY MORTGAGE market, of private banks.

Does anyone here NOT understand what the SECONDARY MORTGAGE market means? Banks buy, sell, trade "compiled" securitized (not individual) mortgage ASSETS to other banks and firms.

(but Fox News says Bush was the hero who warned Dems about risky lending)

This article is a WEAK criticism of the Bush admin using some archaic rule from the 1800s to block States from halting the financial crisis earlier, vs allowing it to spin out of control for five more years.
--------------------
Unscrupulous lenders could reap the greatest PROFITS by issuing subprime loans packed with unfavorable terms and subject to exorbitant interest rates, and only then SELLING them for cold, hard cash. [PRECISELY what happened.]

A rash of borrowers found themselves saddled with predatory loans they had NO HOPE of paying off.

[this means the owners of these ASSETS had NO HOPE that many of these assets would continue to "perform" ... but were strongly desired by big banks anyhow ... banks were acting like if Best Buy started selling fake knockoff soon-to-break I-pads to unsuspecting customers]

To combat this surge in predatory lending, several state legislatures decided to stanch the flow of easy credit to subprime lenders. In 2002, Georgia became the first state to tell players in the secondary mortgage market that they might be on the hook if they purchased loans deemed "predatory" under state law.

This worked a dramatic change.

That's when the FEDS came in.

Some of the biggest players in the secondary mortgage market are national banks [NOT those GSEs, not Freddie and Fannie], and the states' efforts to curb predatory lending clashed with the banks' fervent desire to KEEP the market in subprime loans ROLLING.

National banks turned to the Treasury Department's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

==>> While the banks' legal arguments were THIN, the OCC issued regulations in early 2004 nullifying the state laws as they applied to national banks.

As the then-comptroller explained in a speech to the [right wing] FEDERALIST Society,

"We know that it's possible to deal effectively with predatory lending without putting impediments in the way of those who provide access to legitimate subprime credit."

==>> With the state laws nullified, national banks were free to engage in the sharp practices the states were hoping to stamp out.

==>> Subprime lenders have LOBBIED HARD against the state laws, and the incipient legislation could have been strangled in its infancy anyway. But the bottom line is that, had the state laws been permitted to go into effect, investors would now be sitting on fewer subprime loans that will never be repaid. The subprime catastrophe might have been more like a mini-crisis.

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

Re: Eating The Rich

GaryGoddmn — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:45:50 -0000

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis

Both deregulation, and excess regulation, of financial institutions have been blamed for the late-2000s (decade) subprime mortgage crisis in the United States.

A number of writers have claimed that the financial crisis was caused by too much regulation aimed at increasing home ownership rates for lower income people. They have pointed to two policies in particular: the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which they claim pressured private banks to make risky loans, and HUD affordable housing goals for the Government Sponsored Enterprises ("GSEs"), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which they claim caused the GSEs to purchase risky loans.

[GSE's purchased risky loans FROM BANKS THAT ALREADY ISSUED THE LOANS aka, the Banks already purchased Collateralized Debt Obligations from insolvent people on inflated housing that depended on higher inflation to eat up risks and make them "good"]

However, other researchers have made opposing claims. These researchers present data which suggests that GSE loans were less risky and performed better than loans securitized by more lightly regulated Wall Street banks. They also suggest that CRA loans mandated by the government performed better than subprime loans that were purely market-driven.

They also present data which suggests that

==>> financial firms that LOBBIED the government most AGGRESSIVELY also had the RISKIEST lending practices, and lobbied for relief from REGULATIONS that were LIMITING their ability to take GREATER RISKS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Criticism for blaming Fannie and Freddie

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages came from private lending institutions in 2006.

The share of subprime loans insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decreased as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48 percent to insuring 24 percent of all subprime loans in 2006).

Despite conservative criticism for government lending programs as the main cause of the crisis, much of the crisis was INDEPENDENT of government home loan programs.
====================

HAVE A JOYFUL FACT-FREE DAY for the rest of your evening.

Re: Eating The Rich

GaryGoddmn — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:26:45 -0000

You are really really REALLY Soft on Crime.

The losses from White Collar Crime are bigger than ALL other property crimes combined.

So you are also Anti-Property. You want to protect the property rights of Thieves and Robbers.

Guess what Obama just did?
The JOBS Act protects the property rights of Thieves and Robbers, and guarantees an increase in Thievery and Robbery by CEOs.
It was Bi-Partisan, LOL.