the subprime debacle was a free market disaster:Federal housing data reveal that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis
Nickname unavailable
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.rush-limbaugh, alt.global-warming
the subprime debacle was a free market disaster:Federal housing data
reveal that the
private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was
behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
* Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008
WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a
conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a
government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class
Americans
has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and
the
freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance
giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized
on
Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused
Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the
private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was
behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers
during
the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was
at
its height vrom 2004 to 2006.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
_ More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued
by
private lending institutions.
_ Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low-
and
moderate-income borrowers that year.
_ Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject
to
the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic
weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages,
beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's
Working
Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.
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.
"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a
disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said
Neil
Cavuto of Fox News.
Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or
anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who
actually underwrite the loans.
It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans,
banks
have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.
This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership
for
minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase
low-
income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually
reached
this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income
families.
To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners
gave
unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage
brokers
more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.
But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families
represent
a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing
boom
in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer,
President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently
boasting
that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S.
homeownership.
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.
About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage
market, according to the Federal Reserve.
Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the
Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit
for
underserved neighborhoods.
Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and
other
restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially
minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth
creation
it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial
institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their
communities.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while
the
goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on
Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders —
to
extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's
called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."
Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more
loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector
competitors.
In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and
Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.
What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules.
The
investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such
as
New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the
subprime loans.
These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them
to
be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the
federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to
federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for
affordable housing created today's problems.
"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the
CRA
have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased
the
volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."
In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007,
the
late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of
all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-
prime
and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low
default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he
wrote, "that this new lending is good business."
Michael Price
> alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.libertarian,
> alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.rush-limbaugh, alt.global-warming
>
> the subprime debacle was a free market disaster:Federal housing data
> reveal that the
> private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was
> behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis
>
irrevelant
was it?
And the fact that the government controlled the interest rates and
therefore
both the price of property and the incentive to lend for it was
irrelevent too?
> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
>
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
>
> By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
> * Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008
>
> WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a
> conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a
> government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class
> Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.
>
> Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and
> the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance
> giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized
> on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused
> Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
>
No they contend that lending to people who couldn't pay back did
that.
> Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the
> private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was
> behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
>
But subprime lending wasn't the cause of the crisis, since subprime
loans didn't become more likely to default relative to prime loans.
In any
case Frannie and Freddie did lend to lots of people who couldn't pay
back
because the government wanted that.
> Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers
> during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was
> at its height vrom 2004 to 2006.
>
> Federal Reserve Board data show that:
>
> _ More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued
> by private lending institutions.
>
And they lent because they knew they could sell the loans to
Frannie
and Freddie. This is really an absurd distraction, everyone knows
that Frannie
and Freddie didn't make direct loans so to compare the number of loans
made
by them to "private" institutions is ludicrous.
> _ Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low-
> and moderate-income borrowers that year.
>
> _ Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject
> to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
>
"Directly subject", yep that's the qualifier that reveals. In fact
of course
the subprime loans were immediately sold to institutions that were
directly
subject to the housing law weren't they?
> The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic
> weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages,
> beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's
> Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.
>
And why were they weakened? Because the government wanted more
loans made.
> 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.
>
> "I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a
> disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said
> Neil Cavuto of Fox News.
>
> Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the
> Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or
> anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who
> actually underwrite the loans.
>
Yep, with the effect that other people could make riskier loans.
> It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans,
> banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.
>
> This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership
> for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban
> Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase
> low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually
> reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income
> families.
>
> To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners
> gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage
> brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.
>
So did the easy money policy of the Fed, which had far more to do
with
the current pain than any "unscrupulous" dealings by lenders.
> But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families
> represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing
> boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer,
> President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently
> boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S.
> homeownership.
>
Yep, the evil is bipartisan.
> 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.
>
Why would people need "tough standards" to prevent them buying
losing
loans?
> 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.
>
And it was all encouraged by the government who created the money
and the
market for securitizing mortgage loans. Note that the private banks
were subject
to commands by the government on how much they had to lend to
minorities.
> 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.
>
And how did that low interest rate come about?
> About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage
> market, according to the Federal Reserve.
>
> Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the
> Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit
> for underserved neighborhoods.
>
> Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and
> other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially
> minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth
> creation it affords.
There was no such "years of redlining and other restrictive banking
practices", and if there were then competition would have ended it
quickly.
> The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial
> institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their
> communities.
>
> Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while
> the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders —
> to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's
> called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."
>
> Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more
> loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector
> competitors.
The government did pressure lenders to make loans that they didn't
want to
though, didn't they? I mean that's the whole point. So it's not
surprising
that Frannie and Freddie ended up buying a lot of them.
> In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
> Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and
> Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.
>
Note that the regulator was entirely controlled by them.
> What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules.
> The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such
> as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the
> subprime loans.
>
> These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them
> to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the
> federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to
> federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
>
And sold them to banks who needed to satisfy federal criteria.
> In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal
> Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for
> affordable housing created today's problems.
>
> "Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the
> CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased
> the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."
>
> In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007,
> the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of
> all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-
> prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low
> default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he
> wrote, "that this new lending is good business."
Yeah, sure. I believe someone who was a reserve bank governor. If
CRA lending
was so great, why did it have to be made compulsory? And why were so
many people making loans that were obviously crap if there were so
many good
quality loans to be made?
Of course you know nothing about economics so this is all I expect
of you.
Ouroboros Rex
> On Oct 27, 2:04 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.libertarian,
>> alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.rush-limbaugh, alt.global-warming
>>
>> the subprime debacle was a free market disaster:Federal housing data
>> reveal that the
>> private sector, not the government or government-backed companies,
>> was
>> behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis
>>
> Right, so the fact that Frannie and Freddie owned 40% of the debt
> irrevelant
> was it?
Pretty much. They were forced into the market to keep up with their
competitors after republican bills removed all regulation from subprime
mortgage swaps.
> And the fact that the government controlled the interest rates and
> therefore
> both the price of property and the incentive to lend for it was
> irrelevent too?
Nope, that's just a stupid lie. Do-overs for you.
Nickname unavailable
of course you blame the macs for buying the stuff:) they bought, just
as others in the private sector bought. that hardly makes them the
perpetrators. you are blaming the victims, and tried and true old
conservative ploy. and you know nothing about economics. you are
impervious to facts, logic, and reason, and you do not even know what
day it is. the only reason you are still alive, is because the nanny
state is so well developed, that your type with low brow logic, are
allowed to exist, and not end up dead or a slave.
Peter Franks
> Michael Price wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 2:04 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>> alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.libertarian,
>>> alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.rush-limbaugh, alt.global-warming
>>>
>>> the subprime debacle was a free market disaster:Federal housing data
>>> reveal that the
>>> private sector, not the government or government-backed companies,
>>> was
>>> behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis
>>>
>> Right, so the fact that Frannie and Freddie owned 40% of the debt
>> irrevelant
>> was it?
>
> Pretty much. They were forced into the market to keep up with their
> competitors after republican bills removed all regulation from subprime
> mortgage swaps.
Except that isn't true.
>>>
In the spring of 1999, Fannie Mae pledged to purchase at least $10
billion in CRA loans by the end of the year 2002.
...
"Our approach to our lenders is `CRA Your Way'," Gorelick said. "Fannie
Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders' portfolios; we'll package them into
securities; we'll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination;
and we'll create customized CRA-targeted securities. This expanded
approach has improved liquidity in the secondary market for CRA product,
and has helped our lenders leverage even more CRA lending. Lenders now
have the flexibility to use their own, customized loan products,"
Gorelick said.
<<<
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_May_7/ai_74223918/
This isn't about competition, it is about socialism. Even a casual
examination of the facts clearly indicates that.
Ouroboros Rex
> Ouroboros Rex wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>>> On Oct 27, 2:04 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>>> alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.libertarian,
>>>> alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.rush-limbaugh,
>>>> alt.global-warming the subprime debacle was a free market
>>>> disaster:Federal housing
>>>> data reveal that the
>>>> private sector, not the government or government-backed companies,
>>>> was
>>>> behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis
>>>>
>>> Right, so the fact that Frannie and Freddie owned 40% of the debt
>>> irrevelant
>>> was it?
>>
>> Pretty much. They were forced into the market to keep up with
>> their competitors after republican bills removed all regulation from
>> subprime mortgage swaps.
>
> Except that isn't true.
It is 100% true and you cannot show otherwise.
>
>>>>
> In the spring of 1999, Fannie Mae pledged to purchase at least $10
> billion in CRA loans by the end of the year 2002.
Sorry, 1977's CRA had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis.
That was a stupid republican lie for which there is zero evidence.
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
http://www.newamerica.net/blog/asset-building/2008/its-still-not-cra-7222
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/04/yet-again-it-wa.html
You want President Bush's American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, which
mandated zero down loans.
>
> ...
>
> "Our approach to our lenders is `CRA Your Way'," Gorelick said.
> "Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders' portfolios; we'll
> package them into securities; we'll purchase CRA mortgages at the
> point of origination; and we'll create customized CRA-targeted
> securities. This expanded approach has improved liquidity in the
> secondary market for CRA product, and has helped our lenders leverage
> even more CRA lending. Lenders now have the flexibility to use their
> own, customized loan products," Gorelick said.
> <<<
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_May_7/ai_74223918/
>
> This isn't about competition, it is about socialism.
Oh goody, another replicant who doesn't know what socialism is. lol
Even a casual
> examination of the facts clearly indicates that.
Phil Gramm doesn't strike me as a socialist, and neither does deregulating
the subprime mortgage market strike me as socialism.
Nickname unavailable
> Ouroboros Rex wrote:
> > Michael Price wrote:
> >> On Oct 27, 2:04 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> >>> alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.libertarian,
> >>> alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.rush-limbaugh, alt.global-warming
>
> >>> the subprime debacle was a free market disaster:Federal housing data
> >>> reveal that the
> >>> private sector, not the government or government-backed companies,
> >>> was
> >>> behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis
>
> >> Right, so the fact that Frannie and Freddie owned 40% of the debt
> >> irrevelant
> >> was it?
>
> > Pretty much. They were forced into the market to keep up with their
> > competitors after republican bills removed all regulation from subprime
> > mortgage swaps.
>
> Except that isn't true.
>
> >>>
> In the spring of 1999, Fannie Mae pledged to purchase at least $10
> billion in CRA loans by the end of the year 2002.
>
wow, a few billion in a market worth trillions.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Oct 27, 1:02 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Ouroboros Rex wrote:
>>> Michael Price wrote:
>>>> On Oct 27, 2:04 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>>>> alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.libertarian,
>>>>> alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.rush-limbaugh, alt.global-warming
>>>>> the subprime debacle was a free market disaster:Federal housing data
>>>>> reveal that the
>>>>> private sector, not the government or government-backed companies,
>>>>> was
>>>>> behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis
>>>> Right, so the fact that Frannie and Freddie owned 40% of the debt
>>>> irrevelant
>>>> was it?
>>> Pretty much. They were forced into the market to keep up with their
>>> competitors after republican bills removed all regulation from subprime
>>> mortgage swaps.
>> Except that isn't true.
>>
>> >>>
>> In the spring of 1999, Fannie Mae pledged to purchase at least $10
>> billion in CRA loans by the end of the year 2002.
>>
>
> wow, a few billion in a market worth trillions.
>
Combined and Leveraged with others. Wasn't that the problem with
derivatives? That little dab of shit just ruins the whole bowl of ice cream.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Winston Churchill said, "truth is incontrovertible, ignorance can deride
it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is."
ZerkonXXXX
> the subprime debacle was a free market disaster:Federal housing data
> reveal that the
> private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was
> behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis
The core of the crisis was debt and how debt was packaged and how those
debt packages were then rated as bonds and sold off. Not people unable to
repay.
The notion is clear enough: "Enabling minorities and rural white" which
then 'forced' banks or 'pressured' the poor and quite powerless
investment banks on Wall Street to then be at the mercy of an inbred red
neck and innately deficient darkie swarm, championed by an increasingly
vague definition of 'liberals in government'.
Clear until one looks at the fact of who the people were that actually
held those liberal government positions and how many dollars those
powerless banks actually made and are still making off of all of this
which is to say all of us.
Nickname unavailable
the dollar amount was quite small, it paled in comparison to lets say
country wide:) one thing you can always count on a conservative/
libertarian to do, set up one gigantic strawman after another.
Nickname unavailable
thats why so many foreclosures are in the lily white exurbs, another
strawman shot down.
Jerry Okamura
when they borrow money, you would not have people who for the most part,
cannot make the loan payments.
"Nickname unavailable" <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in message
news:91afaf28-5ed1-46fd...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.libertarian,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.rush-limbaugh, alt.global-warming
the subprime debacle was a free market disaster:Federal housing data
reveal that the
private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was
behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
* Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008
WASHINGTON � As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a
During those same explosive three years, private investment banks �
not
Fannie and Freddie � dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged
Mae and Freddie Mac � who in turn pressured banks and other lenders �
Nickname unavailable
> No, if you lend money to people who are able to meet the payments required
> when they borrow money, you would not have people who for the most part,
> cannot make the loan payments.
>
then you better regulate the private sector, because they are unable
to do it themselves.
Peter Franks
I didn't say that the CRA had anything to do with it. We are talking
about the Federal National Mortgage Association being "forced into the
market to keep up with their competitors".
I proved your statement false. The were not forced into the
marketplace, they had an initiative to /further invest/ in the
marketplace BEFORE the effects of any competition or deregulation.
Continuing from my referenced article:
>>>
Through its American Dream Commitment, Fannie Mae has pledged to
transact before the end of this decade more than $20 billion in
specially-targeted CRA business and to finance over $500 billion in CRA
business altogether. Over the decade, an estimated one third of loans
financed by Fannie Mae will meet Fannie Mae's CRA business goal.
<<<
May 7, 2001
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_May_7/ai_74223918/
Strabo
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:26:44 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> No, if you lend money to people who are able to meet the payments required
>> when they borrow money, you would not have people who for the most part,
>> cannot make the loan payments.
>
>
None of those in question QUALIFIED, or we wouldn't
be having this enjoyable conversation.
They were fraudulently accepted.
>
> THe lenders Loaned them them money based on their
> ability to pay the mortage---AS PRESENTED TO THEM
>
Professional lenders normally don't accept information
---AS PRESENTED TO THEM.
They check for accuracy because they want to be repaid.
In the case of the toxic loans, they did not.
The question is, why not?
>
> The lenders, however, did NOT tell them what would
> happen with the variable interest mortage loans
>
1. By law professional lenders are supposed to inform about
such details. That's why they're licensed. Many are due to
go to jail.
2. American borrowers are supposed to be sufficiently educated
to understand an interest rate that's subject to change.
>
> The "borrowers" were just common, ordinary, everyday
> WORKING people---who trusted the lenders
>
No excuse. These WORKING people were sent to schools for
12 years at an average cost of $8000 per year.
>
> The lenders SCREWED them, Jerry
>
Yes and at the same time the borrowers screwed themselves.
Some trick, huh.
>
> Isn't any of this getting thru to you?
>
Oh, we're fully aware of the situation.
Nickname unavailable
professional lenders knew exactly what they were doing. as soon as
they got a signature on the dotted line, they sold the paper to wall
street, who turned around and sliced and diced the paper till no one
could figure out who owned what, then sold the paper to suckers, err,
i mean customers, whom later found out what they purchased was
fraudulent junk. the mortgage brokers knew the stuff was junk, so did
the bankers, and so did wall street.
if the brokers, banks and wall street thought the stuff was so great,
they would not have sold it off as soon as they got done hiding the
fraud. the only reason they got stuck with so much, is because they
could not unload all of it before the economy blew apart as the
results of the bubbles they engineered.
conservatives cannot understand what constitutes fraud, because fraud
is a way of life for them. it comes naturally.
Jerry Okamura
How did you arrive at the conclusion?
Jerry Okamura
<smo...@board.com> wrote in message
news:kfike59stcjfb1te5...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:26:44 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>
>>No, if you lend money to people who are able to meet the payments required
>>when they borrow money, you would not have people who for the most part,
>>cannot make the loan payments.
>
Who cares if they qualified. They got money they could not pay back, based
on the amount of money they made.
>
> THe lenders Loaned them them money based on their
> ability to pay the mortage---AS PRESENTED TO THEM
Are you implying that the borrower lied?
>
> The lenders, however, did NOT tell them what would
> happen with the variable interest mortage loans
>
> The "borrowers" were just common, ordinary, everyday
> WORKING people---who trusted the lenders
You have a very low opinion of your fellow Americans, when you believe they
are too stupid to know better.
>
> The lenders SCREWED them, Jerry
>
A lender cannot screw ANYONE, who does not allow someone to screw them.
Nickname unavailable
> "Nickname unavailable" <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote in message
by asking that question, its obvious that you are impervious to
facts, logic, and reason.
Jerry Okamura
Why?
Peter Franks
>> This isn't about competition, it is about socialism.
>
> Oh goody, another replicant who doesn't know what socialism is. lol
Enlighten me. What is socialism?
Nickname unavailable
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:48:15 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>
> <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >> then you better regulate the private sector, because they are unable
> >> to do it themselves.
>
> >> How did you arrive at the conclusion?
>
> > by asking that question, its obvious that you are impervious to
> >facts, logic, and reason.
>
> borrowrs the facts about the loans
that is correct. according to the cranks ayn rand/milton friedman/
alan greenspan, all information is perfect, and both parties to a
transaction are rational. of course that is a crank assumption. we
really know that one side has way more information than the other, and
will use that information to screw everyone else.
Michael Coburn
> "Nickname unavailable" <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in message
> news:c81f23ad-d499-4a06-a76b-
adc787...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Nickname unavailable" <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:09e60d89-6111-4785-
b2c9-87c...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 29, 6:26 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> > No, if you lend money to people who are able to meet the payments
>> > required
>> > when they borrow money, you would not have people who for the most
>> > part, cannot make the loan payments.
>>
>> then you better regulate the private sector, because they are unable to
>> do it themselves.
>>
>> How did you arrive at the conclusion?
>
> by asking that question, its obvious that you are impervious to
> facts, logic, and reason.
>
> Why?
Here you go, Jerry. From the head rightard herself who, along with
Milton Friedman loves free markets:
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Eusc/Schwartz08.pdf -------------------
Absent securitization, all the various peripheral players in the credit
market debacle including the bond insurers, who unwisely insured
securities linked to subprime mortgages, would not have been drawn into
the subsidiary roles they exploited.
Securities and banking supervisors knew that packaging of mortgage loans
for resale as securities to investors was a threat to both investors and
mortgage borrowers, but remained on the sidelines and made no attempt to
halt the processes as they unfolded and transformed the mortgage market.
---------------------------------------------------------------
What is most interesting about this essay is that although Schwartz
dedicates a full page to lambasting the role of government in the housing
bubble, fiscal policy such as targets for low income housing are not
mentioned in the proposed solutions. All of the solutions, quite
correctly, are monetary and regulatory. That is to say, Jerry, that even
the head freeper agrees that the cause of the bubble were not houses for
the poor, but financial "innovation" run amok. Had the credit worthiness
of borrowers and the localization and compartmentalization of risks in
the institutions where the loans were originated been properly maintained
as was the case in the 90's then there may or may not have been a
"bubble". It was the financial deregulation and lose monetary policy
that was the prime "blower" of the bubble.
"In the case of the housing price boom, the government played a role in
stimulating demand for houses by proselytizing the benefit of home
ownership for the well-being of individuals and families. Congress was
also more than a bit player in this campaign."
But this does not account for a "bubble". It accounts for a "boom". And
if the rightarded insist on blaming Fannie Mae then suck on this:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_Oct_15/ai_92843805/
Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO, Franklin D. Raines today joined President
Bush and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary
Mel Martinez, and other industry leaders and non-profit organizations,
for a housing summit to promote the Administration's proposal to expand
minority homeownership.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.consumer-guides.info/housing/Home_Ownership/ -------------
On December 16, 2003, President Bush signed into law the American Dream
Downpayment Act of 2003, which will help approximately 40,000 families a
year with their down payment and closing costs, and further strengthen
America’s housing market. This legislation complements the President’s
aggressive housing agenda announced in 2002 to dismantle the barriers to
homeownership.
-------------------------------------------------------------
You, Jerry, are a simple spam artist. You have no real clue. Only
partisan ignorance. Projecting the effect of fiscal policies past 3
years is insane. Every new Congress is a new legislature that, with the
aid of the president, should be able to change the laws as required. And
even without alterations to the laws, regulatory agencies can be
compelled to the new order and the will of the majority government.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Coburn
You guys fall into the trap so easily. The lenders needed to be locked
into the transactions and they weren't. That was the primary fallacy.
They did the deals and passed the responsibility upstream. As such they
had no regard FOR THEIR OWN LONG TERM EXPOSURE. They would have loaned
to blow up dolls if they could have gotten away with it and it has zilch
to do with the borrowers. You don't fix the problem by being warm and
fuzzy to the borrowers or the acumen or intellect of the borrowers. You
fix it by making the lenders responsible for THEMSELVES.
From the head freeper:
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Eusc/Schwartz08.pdf ---------------
Securitization substituted the “originate to distribute securities” model
of mortgage lending in lieu of the traditional “originate to hold
mortgages” model. Additional banking innovations, notably the practices
of the derivatives industry made mortgage lending problems worse;
shifting risk that is the basic property of derivatives in directions
that became so complex, neither the designer nor the buyer of these
instruments apparently understood the risks they imposed and implicated
derivative owners in risky contingencies they did not realize they were
assuming.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nickname unavailable
correct, but you miss understood my response. my response was that
the libertarian/conservative cranks say there is no need for oversite,
when all information is perfect, and all parties are rational, we know
that ain't true.
Jerry Okamura
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:hcla4c$7ub$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
Socialism is about the good of the "group" over the good of the individual.
It is successful when the "people" are willing to trade safety for freedom.
"If" the people put freedom ahead of their safety, socialism cannot succeed,
because the "people" would reject the notion that they want to be taken care
of.
Poetic Justice
>
> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:hcla4c$7ub$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ouroboros Rex wrote:
>>>> This isn't about competition, it is about socialism.
>>>
>>> Oh goody, another replicant who doesn't know what socialism is. lol
>>
>> Enlighten me. What is socialism?
Socialism: is waste of human potential.
--
Peter Franks
Is that 'good of the group' affected through compulsion, or voluntarily?
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:17:49 -0800, Peter Franks
>
> <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >Is that 'good of the group' affected through compulsion, or voluntarily?
>
>
> It's not "good" if the "group" ignores or refused to do
> things that society MUST have.
correct, its why the founders said we the people, and the governments
job is to provide for the common good.
Jerry Okamura
<smo...@board.com> wrote in message
news:45hse59mqare1bsb8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:48:15 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>
>>> then you better regulate the private sector, because they are unable
>>> to do it themselves.
>>>
>>> How did you arrive at the conclusion?
>>
>> by asking that question, its obvious that you are impervious to
>>facts, logic, and reason.
>
> borrowrs the facts about the loans
Yep, the borrower is just the victim, too stupid to do what is best for
their interest.
Jerry Okamura
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hcngm...@news4.newsguy.com...
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:48:15 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> "Nickname unavailable" <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in message
>> news:c81f23ad-d499-4a06-a76b-
> adc787...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>> "Nickname unavailable" <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:09e60d89-6111-4785-
> b2c9-87c...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Oct 29, 6:26 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > No, if you lend money to people who are able to meet the payments
>>> > required
>>> > when they borrow money, you would not have people who for the most
>>> > part, cannot make the loan payments.
>>>
>>> then you better regulate the private sector, because they are unable to
>>> do it themselves.
>>>
>>> How did you arrive at the conclusion?
>>
>> by asking that question, its obvious that you are impervious to
>> facts, logic, and reason.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Here you go, Jerry. From the head rightard herself who, along with
> Milton Friedman loves free markets:
>
people who are free. And I love freedom. Why don't you put a high value on
our freedoms?
Michael Coburn
--
Michael Coburn
A person who has no assets and is offered the chance to acquire an asset
with little or no risk will be hard pressed to forgo the opportunity.
After 2003 the mortgage brokers would have written loans to blowup dolls
if they could have gotten away with it. Loans written before 2003 did
not default and most of the people who took advantage of the
opportunities offered realized a gain. It was not until after 2003 that
the real bubbling happened. And it happened on a world wide basis. HUD
and Fannie Mae had NOTHING to do with home loans in the rest of the world
yet these also bubbled. It was a financial disaster caused by rampant
free market securutization and credit default insurance swaps.
Peter Franks
So, through compulsion.
Nickname unavailable
> "Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hcngm...@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:48:15 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> >> "Nickname unavailable" <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote in message
> > adc787ff3...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >>> "Nickname unavailable" <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote in message
>
> >>> news:09e60d89-6111-4785-
> >>> On Oct 29, 6:26 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>> > No, if you lend money to people who are able to meet the payments
> >>> > required
> >>> > when they borrow money, you would not have people who for the most
> >>> > part, cannot make the loan payments.
>
> >>> then you better regulate the private sector, because they are unable to
> >>> do it themselves.
>
> >>> How did you arrive at the conclusion?
>
> >> by asking that question, its obvious that you are impervious to
> >> facts, logic, and reason.
>
> >> Why?
>
> > Here you go, Jerry. From the head rightard herself who, along with
> > Milton Friedman loves free markets:
>
> Yep, I love free markets, because to be successful a free market needs
> people who are free. And I love freedom. Why don't you put a high value on
> our freedoms?
i have never met a crook yet that wants to be regulated:)
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:31:56 -0800 (PST), Nickname
> embodiment of what the will of the people decide it
> is--and does.
government is us.
Nickname unavailable
i have never met a crook yet that wants to be regulated. i have yet
to meet a criminal that thinks we need the police:)
Poetic Justice
Liberals think the Founders said "Once upon a time We the people...."
--
hal
The Founders knew The People were not your masters, you toadying
bootlicker. The Founders meant The People to be free of the
aristocracy. Yet they have you trained better than a dog.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Peter Franks
We aren't talking about protection of rights, but rather benevolence
through compulsion.
Nickname unavailable
wrote:
its "We the people"
Nickname unavailable
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
we have the right to legislate,
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I - The Legislative Branch Note
Section 1 - The Legislature
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of
the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.
we have the right to tax and regulate,
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.
and they are enshrined by the constitution itself.
THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.
you simply want the law of the jungle, we do not.
Peter Franks
What are you talking about?
You want to compel people to benevolence, we -- the freedom-loving, do not.
Jerry Okamura
It can be either.
Poetic Justice
>
> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:hcs5us$kfs$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>
>>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hcla4c$7ub$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Ouroboros Rex wrote:
>>>>>> This isn't about competition, it is about socialism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh goody, another replicant who doesn't know what socialism is. lol
>>>>
>>>> Enlighten me. What is socialism?
>>>
>>> Socialism is about the good of the "group" over the good of the
>>> individual. It is successful when the "people" are willing to trade
>>> safety for freedom. "If" the people put freedom ahead of their
>>> safety, socialism cannot succeed, because the "people" would reject
>>> the notion that they want to be taken care of.
>>
>> Is that 'good of the group' affected through compulsion, or voluntarily?
>
> It can be either.
--
Poetic Justice
You'd have to kill every lawyer to get to that point
--
Poetic Justice
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:56:56 -0800, Peter Franks
> <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> you simply want the law of the jungle, we do not.
>>
>> What are you talking about?
>>
>> You want to compel people to benevolence, we -- the freedom-loving, do not.
>
>
>
> "You, the freedom-loving" nut jobs are tin hats and
> comprise NOTHING of importance
>
You support the Iranian Government and think people in the streets are
huts too, don't you?
--
Poetic Justice
"and General Welfare of the United States" NOW look below and see that
United States means United States Government....
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
No way to borrow on the credit of the "Nation" only on the credit of the
United States Government.
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
> States, and with the Indian Tribes;
>
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
> the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
United States Government, the States have no Bankruptcy or Naturalization.
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
> fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
>
> To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
> current Coin of the United States;
>
Coin of United States Government
> To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
>
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
> limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
> respective Writings and Discoveries;
>
> To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
>
> To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
> and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
>
> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
> concerning Captures on Land and Water;
>
> To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
> shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
>
> To provide and maintain a Navy;
>
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
> Forces;
>
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
> Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
>
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
> for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
> the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
> Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
> according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
>
> To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
> District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
> particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
> *the Government of the United States* , and to exercise like Authority
> over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
> State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
> Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
>
> To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
> Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other *Powers vested by this*
> *Constitution in the Government of the United States* , or in any
> Department or Officer thereof.
>
>
> and they are enshrined by the constitution itself.
>
> THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
> Article. VI.
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
> made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
> made, under the *Authority of the United States* , shall be the supreme
United States Government
> Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
> any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
> notwithstanding.
This "Supremacy clause" only says that the constitution authorizes the
United States government some powers and the laws they make to enforce
those powers are for the entire Nation "Law of the land"
> The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
> Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
> United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
> constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
> This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
> federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.
If constitutionally allowed.
> you simply want the law of the jungle, we do not.
--
Poetic Justice
>>
>> What are you talking about?
>>
>> You want to compel people to benevolence, we -- the freedom-loving, do not.
>
>
>
> "You, the freedom-loving" nut jobs are tin hats and
> comprise NOTHING of importance
>
You support the Iranian Government and think people in the streets are
--
Poetic Justice
>
> Figures.
>
NO but it's fun to see you read it twice...
--
Poetic Justice
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:14:55 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>
> Figures.
>
NO but it's fun to see you read it twice...
I went back and fixed the misspelled/typo word. I used the "edit
message as new" on the menu. Just as I did for this addition.
--
Strabo
Maybe you haven't met all the people.
Most crime in America is institutional.
Professional crooks are counter-parts to laws, police, regulation, etc.
In other words, one does not exist without the other. And we know
which came first.
You may noticed that each time government embarks on another social
'war', i.e., prohibition of alcohol, drugs, crime, the problems worsen.
Crimes of opportunity and passion are a different matter.
In a free society only crimes of opportunity and passion could happen
since there would be no prior restraint or psychological conditioning
for crime.
Nickname unavailable
to provide for the common good. you simply are greedy. that is why
its enshrined in the constitution that government can not only tax,
but regulate. you are unamerican.
Strabo
No, the Founders meant to be free of oppression and restraint of all
types, so they devised a system of minimal government with infinite
checks and balances. It was libertarian in nature.
Liberals see society as classes of potential criminals in need of 'law'
and regulation to maintain order.
Progressives see society as building material for their utopia.
Libertarians see society as individuals who want life, liberty and to
pursue happiness. Libertarians then prevent the concentration of power
by keeping it with the individual.
Nickname unavailable
wrote:
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> > "Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> wrote in message
> >news:hcs5us$kfs$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> >>>news:hcla4c$7ub$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>> Ouroboros Rex wrote:
> >>>>>> This isn't about competition, it is about socialism.
>
> >>>>> Oh goody, another replicant who doesn't know what socialism is. lol
>
> >>>> Enlighten me. What is socialism?
>
> >>> Socialism is about the good of the "group" over the good of the
> >>> individual. It is successful when the "people" are willing to trade
> >>> safety for freedom. "If" the people put freedom ahead of their
> >>> safety, socialism cannot succeed, because the "people" would reject
> >>> the notion that they want to be taken care of.
>
> >> Is that 'good of the group' affected through compulsion, or voluntarily?
>
> > It can be either.
>
> What does the constitution say about forcing people to do things?
>
> --
there are laws, regulations, and taxes.
Nickname unavailable
that is why the nanny state works so well. it protects the stupid,
whom are lucky to be alive with their low ability to understanding
facts, logic, and reason.
Nickname unavailable
that is a lie. the preamble which is recognized by the courts as
original intent. its we the people in order to form a more perfect
union, liar.
> > To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
>
> No way to borrow on the credit of the "Nation" only on the credit of the
> United States Government.
>
because its we the people.
> > To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
> > States, and with the Indian Tribes;
>
> > To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
> > the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
>
> United States Government, the States have no Bankruptcy or Naturalization.
>
because, its citizens are we the people, and they can go bankrupt.
what a moron.
> > To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
> > fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
>
> > To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
> > current Coin of the United States;
>
> Coin of United States Government
>
which is we the people. what do you think a representative government
is? man, the logic and reasoning, its simply amazing.
the supremacy clause means that the constitution is the law of the
land dummy. here it is,
The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in
the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.
> If constitutionally allowed.
>
correct, that is what the supreme court is for. OBTW, the supreme
court over rules all state courts:)
Nickname unavailable
somalia is a paradise, correct?
Nickname unavailable
> hal wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:33:18 -0500, Poetic Justice
> > <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 4, 10:24 am, smor...@board.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:17:49 -0800, Peter Franks
>
> >>>>>> <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Is that 'good of the group' affected through compulsion, or voluntarily?
> >>>>>> Depends, Frankenloon
>
> >>>>>> It's not "good" if the "group" ignores or refused to do
> >>>>>> things that society MUST have.
>
> >>>>> correct, its why the founders said we the people, and the governments
> >>>>> job is to provide for the common good.
>
> >> Liberals think the Founders said "Once upon a time We the people...."
>
> > The Founders knew The People were not your masters, you toadying
> > bootlicker. The Founders meant The People to be free of the
> > aristocracy. Yet they have you trained better than a dog.
>
> No, the Founders meant to be free of oppression and restraint of all
> types,
the founders knew the injustices of out of control capitalism and
aristocracy. that is why the federal government has the right to
legislate, tax, regulate, and tariff.
you might be thinking of the previous confederation, that was the
laughing stock of the world, and unworkable.
so they devised a system of minimal government with infinite
> checks and balances. It was libertarian in nature.
>
that is a lie. there is nothing in the constitution that says limited
government. how ever, there is lots in the constitution that says its
a interventionist document.
> Liberals see society as classes of potential criminals in need of 'law'
> and regulation to maintain order.
>
i have yet to meet a conservative, or libertarian crook, that wants
to be regulated.
> Progressives see society as building material for their utopia.
>
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
OBTW, the courts recognize the preamble as original intent.
> Libertarians see society as individuals who want life, liberty and to
> pursue happiness. Libertarians then prevent the concentration of power
> by keeping it with the individual.
its not we the individuals, its collective, we the people:)
Nickname unavailable
conservative/libertarian nut cases are always trying to alter the
message. its because that is all they have, lies and distortions.
hal
wrote:
in a socialist democracy the power lies with the individual and The
People have decided they have the right to regulate and legislate for
the good of all people. In capitalist libertarianism you get a small
elite class becoming obscenely wealthy while the rest of us eat rat
parts in our hotdogs and drink poisoned water.
Peter Franks
Yep, that the way the propaganda has it. Force people for the common
good. Eliminate choice, eliminate freedom, hello bondage.
Nickname unavailable
you are a crank. i have shown you the constitution, and its not
propaganda. if you think its propaganda, then this is true.
"i have yet to meet a crook or criminal that wants to be regulated,
and likes the police:)"
Peter Franks
> correct, that is what the supreme court is for. OBTW, the supreme
> court over rules all state courts:)
No, it doesn't. It only overrules in cases involving the Constitution.
The US supreme Court has NO judicial power whatsoever in purely state
issues.
Nickname unavailable
unless its taken all of the way to the supreme court.
here is the article,
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court
and here is the enforcement.
THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.
and here is but one example of the supreme court over ruling a state.
the states are subject to the constitution, and its in the supremacy
clause.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=13687
Mason C
Please Google "Supreme Court jurisdiction." See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Jurisdiction
Mason Clark http://frontal-lobe.info
book: Greater America in the Age of Rebellion
book: The Healing Wisdom of Dr.P.P.Quimby
book: Get Rich in Small Business (html)
book: Homosexuality: Causes and Cures
Poetic Justice
>
> The USSC is the highest step in Appeals of 4 major
> types of cases---among them arguments between states,
> appeals from state courts in criminal cases
And they can't over rule a case that isn't within their jurisdiction. If
there is no Federal standing then the State laws are beyond all Federal
meddling.
> State laws can be appealed thru the state courts , to
> the Federal appeals court and then granted Certioriari
> in the USSC
>
Unless there is no Constitutional authority to rule on the case.
--