Repubs. focus on debt wrong?

[kptvol]

Except it is absolutely necessary for the free market and to keep Capital's social metabolic reproduction stable.

I'd love to hear more about "Capital's social metabolic reproduction". Adding extra words together doesn't make it sound smarter.

 

[NEO]

It gets confusing when you say government is evil, inefficient, wrong, etc only then to turn around and say:

Except it is absolutely necessary for the free market and to keep Capital's social metabolic reproduction stable.

I am for as much a free market as possible with very small limited government. I do not believe a company should be able to gobble up and merge with every other company in the area. I do believe in regulation.

The problem you and I have, and where we mainly disagree, is that I blame the banking downfall on the government by creating a situation that the free market was able to take advantage of. If the government had not pushed the banks to raise the Hud limit and change the percentage of risky loans available (which they did) then the bundling would never have taken place. Fanny and Freddy played a very very large part in the downfall. if anything the government should have forced the banks to be more rigid in their lending program.

 

[NEO]

Gibbs here's the cold hard truth. I remember in 08 we started to get a huge % of new homebuyers purchasing HO insurance for ther new house that were in our bottom 10% of IS (Insurance score) policyholders. These were the pay by credit card, month to month, I need more time people, always on the cancel audit. I knew there was a problem then before it even broke due to the sudden change. 99% of the new HO owners where from Fanny/Freddy.

Fanny/Freddy was able to do this because that could take on riskier loans and could bundle them and sell them because the loan was backed by the US government. They could also keep less capital in case of default which they did.

None of that would have happened if F&F had of been not tied to the government and had to stand on its own feet and keep capital. I ran an audit 3 months ago of those home buyers. We lost over 70% due to forclosure as we have to terminate the policy when the bank notifies us due to the elevated risk. Of the other 30%, I bet half will be gone by the end of 2011.

 

[utgibbs]

I am for as much a free market as possible with very small limited government. I do not believe a company should be able to gobble up and merge with every other company in the area. I do believe in regulation.

The problem you and I have, and where we mainly disagree, is that I blame the banking downfall on the government by creating a situation that the free market was able to take advantage of. If the government had not pushed the banks to raise the Hud limit and change the percentage of risky loans available (which they did) then the bundling would never have taken place. Fanny and Freddy played a very very large part in the downfall. if anything the government should have forced the banks to be more rigid in their lending program.

Except the historical reality, NEOCON, is exactly the opposite. The banking institutions bribed, coerced, cajoled, forced the government to remove the regulations and to push Fred and Fran to absorb their cancerous growth.

The banks had historically been regulated to be more rigid in their lending program. There was also demarcation between different kinds of lending institutions. These were lessons learned during the Great Depression, all forgotten when the crisis of Capitalism appeared again in the 1970s.

That is the historical record; that is the real world outside the back door. We have permitted entrenched power and institutions to override what is the will of the individuals constituting this country. It is a crisis of democracy - not of government itself - which is the problem.

 

[NEO]

Except the historical reality, NEOCON, is exactly the opposite. The banking institutions bribed, coerced, cajoled, forced the government to remove the regulations and to push Fred and Fran to absorb their cancerous growth.

The banks had historically been regulated to be more rigid in their lending program. There was also demarcation between different kinds of lending institutions. These were lessons learned during the Great Depression, all forgotten when the crisis of Capitalism appeared again in the 1970s.

That is the historical record; that is the real world outside the back door. We have permitted entrenched power and institutions to override what is the will of the individuals constituting this country. It is a crisis of democracy - not of government itself - which is the problem.

You threw out an opinion ... as usual.

i threw out a fact. F&F being backed in full by the US gov lowered their capital reserves and allowed them to take on riskier loans This is a fact. Not an opinion.


Your view of back door is some conversation you believed happened. At best though, you are saying the government people (who you say we need to trust and will take care of us) sold us out for a dollar.

 

[droski]

The banking institutions bribed, coerced, cajoled, forced the government to remove the regulations and to push Fred and Fran to absorb their cancerous growth..

this is just utter and complete horse****. fannie wanted to increase it's balance sheet. congress said the only way they'd approve it was to loan to low income and minority applicants. fannie and freddie did so and the industry followed. this is a perfect example of govt failure and you stupidly are using it as example of private failure. this is public record for christ sake.

 

[milohimself]

^ All of that.

It's a simple concept. If you're going to loan somebody money, make sure they can pay it back.

The rest is a snowball.