Seeking Alpha

The Wall Street protesters have been sold a bill of goods, Peter Wallison writes: Reckless...

The Wall Street protesters have been sold a bill of goods, Peter Wallison writes: Reckless government policies, not private greed, brought about the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis. The private financial sector "cannot fairly be accused of causing the crisis when only a small minority of subprime mortgages outstanding in 2008 were the result of that private activity."
Comments (114)
  • When in doubt, blame the money lenders.
    12 Oct 2011, 06:18 PM Reply Like
  • Like the average person demonstrating ( make that about 95%) would have the slightest idea what he is talking about.
    12 Oct 2011, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • To borrow, I think the "Flea Party" is an excellent name for the motley lot of them.
    15 Oct 2011, 09:34 AM Reply Like
  • What a crock of B.S.

     

    It's all greed.

     

    Half of Wall Street and Congress should be in prison.

     

    The politicians and the bankers played a game on the populace.

     

    Who got rich? Wall Street and Washington.

     

    Who got screwed? Average family and especially the middle class.

     

    Really, big picture long term we all got screwed, the elites just don't realize they have created their own noose.

     

    The end of the USA as we have known it has begun, and the USSA is just beginning.

     

    Get your heads out of the sand.

     

    Politics is the distraction.

     

    Revolt.
    12 Oct 2011, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • Ebworthen, I know you lost your job. But a revolt is not the way to follow.
    12 Oct 2011, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • Exactly correct!!!!!!!
    12 Oct 2011, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • There is a crooked, incestuous relationship between Wall St. and government at all meaningful levels.

     

    If Wallison has never heard of the revolving door between government and business-supported lobby groups then the rock he is living under is indeed completely impervious to rational thought.
    12 Oct 2011, 07:04 PM Reply Like
  • Eb, I seriously doubt that you have read the Wallison article. He makes most of the same points that you raise, but somewhat more coherently. In a nutshell he is saying that while greed played a small supporting part it was the act of Congress in 1992 that enabled, and subsequently mandated the sub prime swindle. If you are going to rant please get your facts straight.
    12 Oct 2011, 08:00 PM Reply Like
  • It's just capitalism. Unrestrained capitalism. Contains the seeds of it's own destruction, just as unrestrained sosialism contains the seed of it's own destruction.
    12 Oct 2011, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • I'm trying to think of something that's more discriptive than "Exactly correct!!!!!!!"

     

    I'll have to consult my Marine Corp dictionary.

     

    OH! Here it is, under F.

     

    F&c&ing exactly correct!
    12 Oct 2011, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • I'm railing against the ham-handed, one-sided, cyclops visioned oversimplifications that either Washington or Wall Street alone created the tragedy before us.

     

    We have neither free markets nor responsible governments.

     

    The government interference, and private market orgy of speculation, together created the tragedy.

     

    It was greed in both that allowed the loans and leveraged instruments sold worldwide that created the debacle.

     

    It could not have happened without a complicit Government, Courts, Banks, Hedge Funds, and yes, gullible mortgagees, pension funds, and municipal governments who bought the crap they couldn't afford or that they didn't realize was crap.

     

    Wall Street knew damn well they were selling dead mice as Cornish game hens.

     

    Washington knew damn well that they were buying elections with promises more hollow than a paper mache block of Swiss cheese.

     

    To blame the average citizen who will be paying for this treason for generations is blaming them for the weather.

     

    To lay blame on Washington OR Wall Street alone is to try and blame the Sun OR the Moon (but not both) for the seasons and tides.

     

    GREED at all levels of society is the reason.

     

    Pursuing the left/right, Washington/Wall Street, teeter-totter oversimplification of our malfeasance of centuries is the same road to perdition that allowed it in the first place.
    18 Oct 2011, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • Sir Winston Churchill said it much better and more accurately:

     

    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
    20 Oct 2011, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • So Ameriquest Mortgage and Countrywide were completely legitimate lenders? That's hilarious.

     

    I'm seeing much demonizing of these protesters, though it all reads like these people have no right to be pissed. Obviously their message is not easy to pin down yet, but the same was stated about the Tea Party not long ago. The US Constitution also allows them to protest. Give them some time, a few spokespeople will emerge, and then they might achieve some impact.
    12 Oct 2011, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • Eh, there are a lot of legitimate complaints about the way government and Wall Street have operated but these protests are just a bunch of college kids trying to pass the time. I saw a photo of someone there with a big Che Guevarra poster. That about says it all.
    12 Oct 2011, 06:56 PM Reply Like
  • OWS is against the extreme disparities of wealth and income that our current system produces and exacerbates.

     

    That's it, that's their message. Simple and straightforward.

     

    Now I don't want to hear anymore "noone even knows what they're protesting, even the protesters".
    12 Oct 2011, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • How cute a comment.
    That might be YOUR interpretation of why they are protesting but obviously you have not seen any interviews with those actually doing it.
    12 Oct 2011, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • My main objection to the protesters is their apparently total cluelessness about anything at all economic or political.

     

    The only good thing about it is that so many far left democrats and talking heads are linking themselves to it, and this has all the signs of a bad ending.
    12 Oct 2011, 07:35 PM Reply Like
  • A few were interviewed by the WSJ and comments were that they would not like to see their movement co-opted by the Democrats. Originally the Tea Party tried to avoid being co-opted by Republicans. Is the United States now so dysfunctional and polarized that one MUST be aligned with only two entities that speak for all? Why not 3 or even 4 political parties? There has not been a budget passed in 14 years.

     

    Should people be pissed that tons of money was funneled to banks, or that some top level bank executives got hefty bonuses for their efforts to get a government back-stop? Look at the bank failures of the last few years, and most are small to mid sized banks.

     

    Yes, the protestors are unorganized. Yes, they attract nearly anyone wanting media attention for nearly any pet cause. So what? Is the feeling really that if you insult them or ignore them that they will go away? Somehow I doubt that.
    12 Oct 2011, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • No, you're right, I didn't watch the hand-picked interviews on the mainstream media.

     

    Instead, I took 2 minutes and went to their website to read their mission statement in their own workds:

     

    "The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%."

     

    Keep trusting the 1-percenters, wyostocks, keep empowering them.
    12 Oct 2011, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • McHattie, that group is a bunch of socialists and marxists bent over in destroying capitalism. They are jealous of the success of others.
    12 Oct 2011, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • HerrHansa
    I'm seeing much demonizing of these protesters, though it all reads like these people have no right to be pissed.
    Give them some time, a few spokespeople will emerge, and then they might achieve some impact
    ======================...
    they already had their spokespeople and their impact
    remember 2008 election
    12 Oct 2011, 10:38 PM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    "The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%."
    ======================...
    It assumes that 100% of greed and corruption belong to 1% rich people

     

    It assumes they are proven guilty by their income

     

    IMHO
    Nations who were driven by this sentiment had never made it to top
    12 Oct 2011, 10:56 PM Reply Like
  • "The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%."
    ----------------------...

     

    To a certain extent there is truth in that statement.... but lets clearly identify the 1% - it includes Congress.

     

    And then lets also admit that a large percentage of the 99% tried to live like someone at least 20% above them and bought homes they couldn't afford, took out loans for essentials like jewelry, vacations, cars, etc, ran up credit card debts just because, and then threw up their hands and said "oh, I can't pay my bills".

     

    We need policies that reward responsible living. Let those that live irresponsibly suffer (that includes bankers). And lets clean up the tax code to get rid of lobbyists and remove the power that politicians put up for sale. Then lets stop the insane level of government spending and that means cutting programs and agencies and reforming entitlements and cutting the military.

     

    There is no magical solution to our problems by taxing the 1%. Get rid of carried interest. Get rid of all the tax loopholes. Make them pay taxes. But lets be clear that its the spending that is the problem that simply has to be addressed. And we are ALL going to pay more taxes to pay down the 14 Trillion we already owe.
    12 Oct 2011, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • Joe - no they are not.

     

    Marxists and socialists actually have ideas, no matter how bad they might be. Those people do not seem to have any ideas that they are actually FOR at all - just what they are against.

     

    One small group was protesting "money", says we should do away with it. But 30 seconds into the interview, their entire argument falls apart.

     

    In short, they are full of thoughts that are about as shallow as a cup of water poured on a football field.
    13 Oct 2011, 01:46 AM Reply Like
  • If that were true, and the current President you have were elected based upon anger at the financial system, then without the financial system solved he would be unlikely to be re-elected. It all seems too simple to just explain it away like that. People like to point fingers because they try to placate others, though the reality is rarely ever that easy.

     

    Perhaps I could choose better terminology. Imagine they get their thoughts together and actually state something beyond pointing out their distaste of the obvious. Proving fraud is extremely difficult. At a high enough level the legal battle might be beyond winning, or the large financial institutions could just push for a settlement, much like those recent negotiations of improper mortgage handling. It's almost like the path for success in the US is not to make millions, instead it is how to place you company in a position to loose Billions, then your company will not be allowed to fail. Meanwhile the Government will explain these actions as in your best interest.

     

    Then again, something even simpler to imagine. Suppose you worked at Goldman Sachs in 2008, and all this went down. Suddenly it's 2009 and your company took in TARP money. There was an announcement of lay-offs, then you became one of those who lost their job. Months later you read about how your former CEO did such a wonderful job that he got a record bonus. So if you were that former GS worker, would you be pissed?
    13 Oct 2011, 03:20 AM Reply Like
  • The point is not if they go away or not, it is that they are so incoherent with their message that they are irrelevant.
    13 Oct 2011, 04:41 AM Reply Like
  • @daviddbc - I find nothing to disagree with in your comment. Increasing taxes on the rich is not the answer - that just gives more money to government which is entirely captured by corporate, monied interests.

     

    There are 2 halves to this discussion: 1) the problem; 2) the solution.

     

    There is much disagreement in general and also within the OWS movement as to the solution.

     

    But if we can at least agree on the problem then that's half the battle.

     

    And that's what OWS is about, identifying the problem: excessive disparities of wealth and income undermine our democracy, our freedom, our way of life.
    16 Oct 2011, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • It is true that there are a lot of messages. And it is incoherent to some extent. But there is a common thread. Wall Street and Washington has screwed the poor and middle class (99%). That's pretty simple and coherent.

     

    Now you can disagree with that, but, I don't know how.

     

    Also, they don't have big money behind them. The Koch bothers aren't providing any of their treasure. But, they are getting grassroots contributions.

     

    They are irrelevant and they will become more focused and coherent. This is not going to end.

     

    I'm a child of the 60's and I think it's about time the American People made their voices heard even if it is incoherent for now. It's a breath of fresh air to me. Much better than sitting on the couch, getting up periodically and bending over.
    17 Oct 2011, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • Yes, by all means dismiss the voice of thousands of people across the country because of a Che Guevarra poster.

     

    The legitimate complaints are why they're there.

     

    And I think the American People (99%) are pissed off enough to persist and prevail.

     

    1% owning 40% of the wealth is cause enough for a "French Revolution" type moment. Occupy Wall St. should probably invest in a guillotine if for no other reason than to drive home a point.

     

    Chop, Chop
    20 Oct 2011, 05:21 PM Reply Like
  • If the other 99% of the citizenry were to spend less than what they have coming in, they too could amass wealth.
    20 Oct 2011, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • ..."our current system produces and exacerbates." Really? And how exactly does our current system make the rich richer and the poor poorer?
    20 Oct 2011, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • Well, about 40% of the 99% are living in poverty and lucky to eat from day to day. 10% are unemployed because the 1% shipped there jobs off shore to slave laborers. 20% of the 99% are lower middle income with kids to raise. The other 29% could probably save and amass wealth.

     

    Now you may understand why they're in the streets, but, I doubt it. And besides it's all their fault isn't it with all that minimum wage crap.
    20 Oct 2011, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • Mongie,

     

    More than 40% of them are carrying smartphones with a data plan.

     

    They do not appear to be very smart by complaining.
    20 Oct 2011, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • You poor, angry fool. You have no idea what poverty actually is.
    20 Oct 2011, 07:48 PM Reply Like
  • I have to kinda disagree with you regarding the 1%. Maybe some of the members of Congress meet the criteria of the 1%, but most aren't the 1%, they are owned by they 1%.

     

    No one believes taxing the 1% will solve all our problems. Not taxing them presents a huge problem. One of fairness. They already own 40% of the country. When will we be satisfied, when they own 90%???
    21 Oct 2011, 11:47 PM Reply Like
  • Jeez Native, if you can't figure that out, no amount of education from us will help you.
    21 Oct 2011, 11:48 PM Reply Like
  • Oh Monngie, the facts just don't support you:

     

    http://bit.ly/oHB1Uq

     

    261 millionaires. House average wealth 765K, Senate 2.38MM

     

    And remember that they don't have the report the value of their personal residences in those numbers!

     

    The facts just don't back up the claims of those poor public servants toiling away for "we the people"....... those days are long long gone. And remember that this doesn't even begin to show how much members of their families are earning as lobbyists, VP's, consultants etc, etc from the various special interest groups.

     

    The Triumvirate of the financial elite, politicians, and bureaucrats are ruining this country while robbing us blind!!
    22 Oct 2011, 12:59 AM Reply Like
  • Native,
    Like you, I don't recall reading an article in the newspaper lately that reported anyone dying in the USA from hunger.

     

    No one argues that there are the "poor" among us. We will always have the poor among us for many reasons. Many have no choice because of circumstances that have made it their life. When you get in a car wreck and the other guy has no insurance and you are paralyzed.....then you will probably be poor for the rest of your life.

     

    When you drop out of high school because you like to party and do drugs, and you don't care about an education and you are willing to work at McDonalds or some restaurant....then you may be choosing to be poor for the rest of your life. If you choose poverty....I have empathy for your position and feel sad that you made wrong choices. But I don't feel an obligation to help you .... unless you want help to change your life. If you just want me to send you a check...no sympathy there.
    22 Oct 2011, 05:06 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie, R. Regan once said that "..., the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so..", your response exemplifies his contention. I would encourage you to try and respond to my challenge that you substantiate what you said. In doing so, you'll find out why the kool-aid you've been drinking from the Left really doesn't have any substance to it.
    22 Oct 2011, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • Herman Cains says if your poor it's your own fault.
    22 Oct 2011, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • I don't know where the cut off is for being in the the 1%.

     

    In any event, if they aren't part of the 1% they are owned by the 1%.
    22 Oct 2011, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • LOL, Cain is a certified nut-job ranting about political nonsense as well. Like his 9-9-9 plan which has been totally discredited by multiple sources who have done the calculations. But as with all politicians, instead of admitting they are wrong, they just lie about it and continue with the BS.
    22 Oct 2011, 06:56 PM Reply Like
  • Untrusting and Mongie,

     

    The status quo always labels any meaningful reform, with terms like "Nut-Job" and the like.

     

    Wanna know what's really nuts?

     

    Doing the same thing, over & over again and expecting different results.

     

    At least Cain is starting a ligitimate debate and baseline for meaningful reform.

     

    Any concerns over regressive nature, could be adjusted via exemptions (for the low end) and/or AMT like taxes at the high end of the income spectrum in the interest of fairness and viability.

     

    What does the Status Quo advocates offer?

     

    More of the same, which, unless you are blind (or Crony Connected) has not served us very well.
    22 Oct 2011, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • A 9% sales tax is a very interesting idea. In fact all tax and regulatory regimes are consumption taxes as the cost of gov to a society is buried into everything they consume. Everybody pays the same consumption tax rate, but they don't see it. As a result, some of the populace will advocate for policies that are actually harmful to them because the cost of what they are advocating for is hidden from them.

     

    In Alaska, part of the state finances is the Permanent Fund. A portion of the funds earnings is paid to just about every resident, man, woman, and child. Whenever the state wanted to raise spending, and this threatened to reduce the payout from the fund to the residents, the opposition to the additional state spending was enormous (except for state employees of course). Why? Because just about everyone felt it. The Permanent Fund operated as sort of a reverse consumption tax. By giving everyone a stake in what government spent, they were very cautious about what the gov was allowed to increase spending for.

     

    The visible consumption tax proposed by Cain, would be a great tool in exposing the consequences of gov spending that everyone (rich and poor alike) incurs, but that they don't see. This would finally expose to lower income brackets that they can't punish the rewards of productivity without impacting their own economic circumstances.
    22 Oct 2011, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • xls,
    Cain .... legitimate debate??? Now that's funny.

     

    The guy is a total nut-job. Without even the moral integrity to admit that his 9-9-9 plan is so absurd that it's not even worth the time that has been wasted on it so far. Which isn't even very much. But you do have to give Cain credit. He is certainly in the mold of current politicians. A low level thinker, dishonest, self-serving, and certainly more than willing to sell his services to any vested interest group willing to pay-to-play. But, that does certainly qualify him to be on the political stage, at least by current political standards anyway. Personally would not vote for a dimwit like Cain if he was the only candidate in the entire race. The write in votes alone would ensure that almost anybody else would get elected before Cain would.
    22 Oct 2011, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • Another objective of starting a consumption tax, would be to eliminate the corporate income tax. After all, a corporate income tax is just a disguised consumption tax. Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers, employees, and shareholders pay the taxes. When people started feeling the cost of gov that they actually bear but don't see, they would then start advocating for policies that don't punish production rather than policies that subsidize consumption. Instituting a consumption tax of any size would be a natural check on gov and as such be a great barrier of the 9% ever getting to 20% as everyone would feel the tax and not be so apt to advocate for more spending.
    22 Oct 2011, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • Untrustworthy,

     

    You just verified my claim.

     

    You offered nothing, other than personal attacks and hatred, with unsubstantiated accusations & no alternative solutions.

     

    You are just another angry liberal, against hard work, personal responsibility and the American dream.

     

    You feel threatened, because that's what Cain represents.
    22 Oct 2011, 08:43 PM Reply Like
  • I'm not rich by a long shot, but if the tax code could be condensed into something simple where I pay 18%, and 18% only, I'm all for it.

     

    Even as someone who is not rich by a long shot, I'm fairly certain I pay more in taxes than that as it is right now.
    22 Oct 2011, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • The Left says that if you're poor, it's NOT yor fault.
    23 Oct 2011, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • Native,

     

    Actually, The left says if you're poor it's the rich guy's fault.

     

    They are not big fans of self-reliance & personal responsibility.
    23 Oct 2011, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • xls,
    You have no claims, no practical ideas, nothing of any merit whatsoever.

     

    You are nothing more than an political ideologue with nothing to contribute but rehashes of some nonsense written on some idiotic website or blog. You represent the baseline case of the dumbing down of America today.

     

    Those of us who have actually done something, created something, employed people, and managed and owed business actually have a brain and can evaluate economic and political rhetoric vs. something that actually has substance and some possibility of actually doing something constructive.

     

    xls, you need to get off of financial websites like SA, and go and waste your time on propaganda campaigns that make absolutely zero difference to anything. Nobody including us cares about your political and ideological rants.

     

    23 Oct 2011, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • One other benefit to having a piece of the tax code being a consumption tax is that it discourages consumption. This would also aide it exposing the myth that economies are "consumer" based. There is no such thing as a consumer based economy. All economies are producer based. After all, what would consumers consume if nothing was produced.

     

    How often do we hear that our economy is 70% consumer based? Well, what if it were 100%? If everyone consumed and no one produced, what would they consume? Or, better yet, what if all production was consumed and there was no savings? If a piece of equipment broke down, how would it be replaced if there was no capital?

     

    The great thing about a consumption tax is it would discourage consumption and encourage savings. Lower income brackets would have some incentive for capital creation, thus giving them an opportunity to create a way out of the lower income brackets. More savings and more capital makes labor more efficient. This drives down the cost of production. Lower production costs would act as a tax reduction, which would then provide for justified increases in consumption.
    23 Oct 2011, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • "A more noble purpose": http://bit.ly/qpGqpW/
    23 Oct 2011, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • It appears that in the USA, poverty is defined by not being able to afford two iPhones.
    24 Oct 2011, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • To a very large extent, Cain is correct.

     

    Take a close look at the so-called "poverty stricken", and for a very large percentage of them, it is their own lifestyle choices that put them there.

     

    Taking from the rich will not improve the lot of the poor - all it will do is increase the pool of those that have essentially voted themselves - via their politicians - handouts.

     

    Yes, many of those people are victims - but many are victims of themselves, not that mythical 1%.
    24 Oct 2011, 09:26 AM Reply Like
  • "... I think it's about time the American People made their voices heard..."

     

    When the Tea Party did exactly that, you labeled them far differently.
    24 Oct 2011, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • Then I think you'd be hardpressed to find a house in this country that didn't have 2 (i)phones. (more realistically: cell phones)
    24 Oct 2011, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • Wanna know what's really nuts?
    1980XLS

     

    Doing the same thing, over & over again and expecting different results.

     

    Are we talking about the "supply side economics", aka "voodoo economics" that the NOT SO FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE" Republicans have been advocates of for 30 years?

     

    Your absolutely right.
    28 Oct 2011, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • Wallison has it right.
    12 Oct 2011, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • I agree with the author. Government is the sole responsible of this mess. With Obama being one of the leaders of this mess.
    12 Oct 2011, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • This all happened before Obama Joe. How much are getting paid to schill right wing lies buddy? You can tell me. My name is also Joe.

     

    12 Oct 2011, 06:58 PM Reply Like
  • Joe thinks that if you get some one out of a mess, your responsible for the mess.

     

    Joe's Smart isn't he?
    12 Oct 2011, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • Some of us think that when the new leader makes the mess worse, perhaps we need a new leader.
    13 Oct 2011, 04:45 AM Reply Like
  • I would agree with that.

     

    Obama didn't make it worse. Although, I will agree that I don't agree with what he did entirely, the things they did brought us back onto the cliff Bush launched us off, just as the door was hitting him in the ass.

     

    It's hard for him to do anything substative with a congress that has "NO" for a motto. That's what needs to be changed, a do nothing Republican House and a Senate with too many Republicans.
    13 Oct 2011, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie....they just have to have some good ideas to say "Yes" to, and I am not sure they have a clue.
    13 Oct 2011, 06:38 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    t's hard for him to do anything substative with a congress that has "NO" for a motto.
    ======================...
    Would be it unthinkable to suggest that a few "NO" from democratic side of Congress could make things are better than they are now including for President himself
    13 Oct 2011, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • t's hard for him to do anything substative with a congress that has "NO" for a motto. That's what needs to be changed, a do nothing Republican House and a Senate with too many Republicans.
    ======================...

     

    What world do you live in?

     

    First two years of his presidency he had both houses of Congress!!!

     

    The "do nothing" House of Representatives has passed two budgets this year. Senate??????

     

    The "do nothing" House of Representative has passed over 100 bills to cut regulations. Senate hasn't taken up a SINGLE one of them!!!

     

    What your really saying, is that you want the republicans to disband and just let the democrats pursue socialist nirvana and take over control of everything and decide how all the money in the country will be spent - I'd bet that even then you'd be crying that there just isn't enough money for all the wonderful programs that are needed!
    13 Oct 2011, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • You know very well my views on spending. They pretty much agree with yours.........we've had that discussion.

     

    Your going to have to "show me" on the over 100 bills. I can't find it anywhere.

     

    We've had the discussion on the budgets. The budgets they propose harken back to the 1930's. You know the ones that sent us back into the Great Depression. These budgets are just plain stupid and DO NOT constitute doing something. They are worse than doing nothing.

     

    I agree we have to get our spending house in order, but, not at the expense of throwing the economy into a depression. Lets get the economy working again and then control our spending. In the mean time, spend our money on infrastructure, basic research, tax cuts for small business and the middle class, and other things we will benefit from in the future.
    15 Oct 2011, 12:18 AM Reply Like
  • Well I"m not going through all 100 bills to list them - its easy enough to find.

     

    Here is a specific number for you though:

     

    "The Obama Administration’s December 2010 report on federal regulations listed 4,225 regulatory actions under development by federal agencies. Uncertainty about the cost of these upcoming regulations discourages employers from hiring new employees and expanding their businesses. "

     

    Thats from the horses mouth!!! 4,225 regulatory actions under development!!!! For crying out loud can anyone name 4,225 things that need further regulation in this country?????

     

    And you just don't seem to understand that its the spending that is ruining the economy - we live 5-10% above our means..... that means there is no magical way out of the problem but to live 5-10% less than people feel entitled to!!!!! There will be no economic recovery (at least that looks like one to the average person) until the government is slashed!!! Entire agencies need to go. Military spending needs cut. Guess what it will hurt in the short term..... but its the only way to get to a place that we can then lay a solid foundation for growth. 40% borrowing every year is madness!!!!
    15 Oct 2011, 12:37 AM Reply Like
  • You don't have to go through all 100 bills just point me in the right direction. I'm usually pretty good at ferreting out BS on-line, but, I can't find the 100 bills you contend.

     

    Additionally, of the 100 bills how many of the created 1 job. I don't think any of them did. It's not in the Republicans interest to create even one job before the election, and they won't.

     

    I don't think either of us are able to discuss 4225 regulatory actions. Some may be good, all may be good, some may be bad, all may be bad. To throw our 4225 regulatory actions as if they are all bad is just plain incoherent. Go through the 4225 peices of regulatory actions and get back with me. I am not a fan of over regulation, but, some regulations are necessary to insure safe food, consumer products, air, water and many other things. We cannot rely on business to police itself......been there, done that. It didn't work and history is the proof of my contention.

     

    I fully understand that spending in this country is RUNNING the economy not RUINING it. And I would argue more spending is in order at this time in certain areas of the economy (Infrastructure, space, and basic research) while other areas need to be trimmed back. Indeed, we've had this discussion before also and I pretty much agree with your opinion in many areas. I just don't think spending cuts AT THIS TIME are prudent. In the future, spending cuts are absolutely necessary. I will say that we could start cutting defense right now and continue that trend over the next several years so it doesn't shock our defense industries, they'll know its coming and adjust for it.

     

    Right now, every effort, every carrot, every stick, should be employed to bring jobs back to the United States. That is the best way to fix our economy. Unemployed Americans and slave labor in China and elsewhere don't pay taxes and American businesses don't pay taxes on profits made off shore. Additionally, they are hoarding over a trillion dollars in profits off shore.

     

    Davidbdc, as I mentioned before we are very close to being kindred spirits, we agree on many things. Our only disagreements seem to be timing. I am a fiscal conservative that happens to believe the government can make a big difference by investing in science and technology through basic research, maintaining a robust infrastructure, and steering our economy into the future with tax breaks for businesses that are pushing the envelop bringing to market technologies that will replace older obsolete methods.
    20 Oct 2011, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • Are you feeling well, Monngie? Coherent, not an attack, good ideas.... Bravo.
    21 Oct 2011, 06:57 PM Reply Like
  • Some right wing outfit and author will always try to make a case for whatever suits their ideology and what they are getting paid to write about and promote.
    12 Oct 2011, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • They have it half right - the bankers were/are crooks..... and so are our idiot Congressmen and women.

     

    Throw them both in jail!!!

     

    Better yet..... drum roll...... ready...... aim.... Fire!!!!
    12 Oct 2011, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • There is no way on earth that the government could force financial institutions to issue NINJA loans. They did that out of pure greed.

     

    Same with the rating agencies: the government had no role in their enhanced ratings for tranches of bad mortgages.
    12 Oct 2011, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • The government bailed out these institutions, which is implicit approval of their actions.

     

    Moral hazard rules the day here.
    12 Oct 2011, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • The financial institutions and the rating agencies acted first -- in effect they bored a hole in the bottom of the economic boat. The government had to bail the water out to save us all and you want to blame the government?!?
    13 Oct 2011, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • Obama and Holder are terrorists they need to go.
    12 Oct 2011, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • If you're angry at Obama and Holder for not holding any of the scum who damn near destroyed our financial system accountable, you know bankingqueen. Bankers, then I sort of agree with you.

     

    Too bad you have no idea what you mean as you are a sheep who repeats whatever crap he's told by a guy from Fox news.
    12 Oct 2011, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • I like you Joe!
    12 Oct 2011, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • me too!
    12 Oct 2011, 09:38 PM Reply Like
  • ...and who is it that bought and paid for these 'reckless gubment policies' that have served America's elite so well?
    12 Oct 2011, 06:52 PM Reply Like
  • Who was President when banks were unregulated in the boom years of 2000-2008?
    12 Oct 2011, 06:57 PM Reply Like
  • Terry, who deregulated them?
    12 Oct 2011, 07:09 PM Reply Like
  • I'm not going to defend Bush but everyone knows that the Gramm Leach Bliley act which repealed Glass Stiegel took place under the Clinton administration - this had a lot to do with banks getting involved in risker activities.

     

    Please stop with the partisan crap - both parties are corrupt.
    12 Oct 2011, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • Roger on the "stop the partisan crap".

     

    However, so everyone understands how bi-partisan this S#!+ball is it should be mentioned that the repeal was passed by the Republican majority Congress with Democratic support.
    12 Oct 2011, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    Please stop with the partisan crap - both parties are corrupt.
    ======================...
    Good observation.

     

    Personally I would vote for anybody, who stands for lower taxes on rich including

     

    Collection and distribution of tax revenues is the main reason of corruption in Office
    12 Oct 2011, 11:06 PM Reply Like
  • Lower taxes on the rich????

     

    Will you be happy when they pay no taxes and the middle class pays for everything?????

     

    I'll bet you will!!!!
    14 Oct 2011, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • Terry,

     

    Where were you when Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal?
    12 Oct 2011, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • Isn't Clinton a multimillionaire from government service (and influence peddling)?
    12 Oct 2011, 07:11 PM Reply Like
  • Yes, He is.
    12 Oct 2011, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • My God, the hate, vitriol, ignorance and bigotry which comes from the Left is both deafening and shameful.
    12 Oct 2011, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • Probably not so much from government service. The influence peddling certainly did the trick. He's in tight with the Bushes. Him and GH are buds.
    12 Oct 2011, 09:34 PM Reply Like
  • Sure, but his Clinton Foundation is worth $100 million. From various countries, including millions from all around the Middle East. I wonder what his wife does?
    12 Oct 2011, 11:05 PM Reply Like
  • Isn't Clinton a multimillionaire from government service (and influence peddling)?
    -----------

     

    Come on, lets give credit where credit is due...... his wife is the best cattle future trader on the planet - thats where they got their 10's of millions from!!!
    12 Oct 2011, 11:24 PM Reply Like
  • Honest and hardworking Americans are always the victims of "reckless governmental policies" from Bush and his elite Republicans along with corporate greeds in WallStreet. They left a huge mess in modern U.S. history, nothing but man made disaster.
    12 Oct 2011, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • "Italians know about human nature - they understand human nature perhaps better than anyone else does. They know that people are weak and greedy and lazy and dishonest and they just try to make the best of it; to work around it."
    Donna Leon
    12 Oct 2011, 07:17 PM Reply Like
  • Ha ha Government can't tie their own shoes, follow the money Goldman and JP Morgan made billions, government lost money. And so of course did taxpayers...
    12 Oct 2011, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • These kleptocrats run these wedge issues all the time. Some like Glenn Beck's "they are coming to drag you into the street and kill you" are just evil. Others like Walison are just pure decoys and propaganda.

     

    On CNBC David Faber was engaged yesterday and ran an incredible contrast between Asher Edelman,
    http://bit.ly/qXOfYF
    former Wall Street tycoon supporting OWS (very insight), and Judd Gregg.
    http://bit.ly/nD4h5a
    The later crony and stooge (now with GS) is the very embodiment of what the OWS Movement is opposed..
    12 Oct 2011, 07:58 PM Reply Like
  • I would tend more to agree with Judd Gregg, but his statements lead me to one question. He mentions the ability to get funding to take risks. The biggest banks had access to lots of funding, and took lots of risks. Obviously anyone in business assumes some risk. Freedom is the ability to succeed or fail. Taking risk could lead to failure. So with the exception of Lehman Brothers, why were more not allowed to fail? This is why "moral hazard" exists now, in that once a company became large enough, it will not be allowed to fail.
    12 Oct 2011, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • Two words.....collateral damage.
    12 Oct 2011, 08:48 PM Reply Like
  • I'll give you an example: AIG. After one of the installments of money funneled to AIG, the announcement was made that this was to "close out" derivative positions. Then a document was leaked showing what banks got those funds in the form of payments from AIG. So I went and looked at each bank to see if they had any statements about the payments. A few had posted statements indicating that the payments were used for additional collateral on positions closing out in a few year, the earliest I found was 2014. So not only was the original statement false, the derivatives in question were still active. This was more of a way to recapitalize certain banks, rather than close out toxic derivatives. I saved the few PDF statements from that time in my research folder, which turned out to be a good move when the banks involved made those documents unavailable. Joseph Cassano was not prosecuted because the courts felt that making mistakes was not criminal, so they let him walk. Maybe AIG is not in the news much anymore, but it seems to me the entire bail-out of them was a sham.

     

    So, yes, more collateral damage. I suppose the same argument was used for General Motors and Cerberus Capital (Chrysler). Lots of small businesses failed too, so why not rescue them? Why should the government decide who fails and who succeeds? That's not freedom, and certainly not capitalism.

     

    So instead of months of anguish they tried to create a soft landing. Now it appears more likely that the soft landing is making the US more like Japan. So is this really better? No matter who gets elected next few elections, this problem is going to stifle growth in the US for a long time.
    12 Oct 2011, 09:04 PM Reply Like
  • HerrHansa, your points are well and rarely made. One further comment on Joseph Cassano. If I remember correctly, Cassano promptly left the country and is probably living comfortably in a villa somewhere.
    13 Oct 2011, 03:36 AM Reply Like
  • Yea....that private sector banking industry had not problem writing all those mortgages when they couldn't even keep track of the paperwork. The sliced and diced them in such a way they had to create the MERS database just to TRY to keep track of them.

     

    Since they knew they could package and sell them to earn their "fee", they couldn't have cared less who bought them so long as they didn't have to keep them. They sold them to the willing Fannie and Freddie, the dunces who kept writing 3% down mortgages after the 2008 despite the fact the housing market was falling 15% - 20% a year - automatically making the problem worse.

     

    What a caricature in stupidity. When the government subsidizes stupidity....you get more of it.
    12 Oct 2011, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • The government has been subsidizing home ownership since the thirties. Remember the GI Bill? No down payment, low interest rates. Back then banks kept the loans in their portfolio, or sold them one by one. Securitizaton set the stage for the debacle. If the loan was current for three months the bank who originated it was off the hook. What became important then was the origination fees, not the performance over the life of the loan.
    12 Oct 2011, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • I think that's apples and oranges. The VA loans to veterans in years past is in no way comparable to the loans over the past 15 years pushed and demanded by the federal gov't.
    12 Oct 2011, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. The government's support of home ownership hasn't changed, even now. But now you can't get a securitization of poor quality loans sold. Prior to the boom in securitization banks had to adhere to credit standards because they were on the hook if the loans soured. What produced the flood of crap was securitization and the "magic" of turning any loan into a AAA rated piece of paper. Originators had no reason to adhere to credit standards, because they weren't taking any risk. So they didn't. It became a game of who could originate the most mortgages, blow the stuff out in packages and pocket the fees. Hugely more profitable than the stodgy business of evaluating borrowers and managing a portfolio of individual loans. Banking used to be a boring, relatively low return but steady business and prior to securitization, bank stocks were also boring but steady stocks even with the government pushing programs to help home ownership.
    13 Oct 2011, 01:18 AM Reply Like
  • Brilliant statement Mr. Hendershott. Unfortunately the scale was also too massive to prosecute, despite a few caught near the bottom end of things, though perhaps that was part of the plan.
    13 Oct 2011, 03:24 AM Reply Like
  • Just wait and watch "student loans" since the Govt took over.
    13 Oct 2011, 03:40 AM Reply Like
  • Whatever this guy says, the current problems of this society result from fornication between the government and business. Their illegitimate relationship flows in both directions. Some times it is difficult to see who is who.
    12 Oct 2011, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • Look this is quite simple. We have hit the wall with regard to the math!
    The only people who should be asking for the forgiveness of every American taxpayer who has been struggling to do the right thing these past few years is, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd!

     

    They are not the only bad actors here, lets not be so simplistic as to only lay blame at their feet, but they were the two who were in a "Place of Power" at the time, that could have reined in both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!
    Barney Frank was the one with the unforgettable line, "I'm willing to role the dice a little longer" with regard to the G.S.E.'s and the drumbeat at the time to do something / anything to cap their run away powers with regard to "The C.R.A.", (The Community Reinvestment Act) which was the leading cause of this debacle and the global financial crisis that plagues us today!

     

    Now onto the repeal of Glass Stegal!
    This is why I am such a big fan of history, it is what it is and is not open to debate, sorry all you progressive shills.
    Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and none other that Alan Greenspan, all under the democratic administration of Bill Clinton were the power players who pushed the repeal of Glass Stegal!
    An extremely smart and insightful woman named Brooksley Born, who was over at the C.F.T.C at the time, tried to warn about the possible time bomb called "DERIVATIVES" and the amount of "LEVERAGE" that was being engaged at wall street financial institutions, i.e.; Goldman, Citigroup, Countrywide Financial.
    Miss Born was all but "Tarred and Feathered" by the members of congress when she tried to raise red flags and Greenspan, Rubin and Summers painted her as some "Overly concerned party pooper" who was going to spoil the "New Economy" where the brilliant Alan Greenspan had the economy humming and could "Always see trouble coming!"
    Mr. Greenspan, to this day will not admit to any fault, he just passes the buck by saying,"The models I was using at the time,turned out to be faulty", excuse me sir, but you are ultimately responsible for the nightmare that originated under your watch!

     

    So when we write the history about this modern day "Global Depression" that we will someday emerge from, I pray we hold the true perpetrators responsible and record their names as the true villains they were and not some corny music conducting "Maestro" and the boy wonder,"Robert Rubin"as he was called at Treasury during the go go 90's!
    Summers, Frank and Dodd?
    Not to worry, history will have a special place for you guys.
    You were the ones in charge and most at fault, you alone among many, could have helped this great country avoid this mess!
    But when history called, you were so wrapped up in your own "Cults of Personality", you damned an entire generation or more to a lower standard of living than otherwise should have been!
    And we haven't even gotten to Bernanke, Geithner and Paulson, let alone Obama and Bush. Isn't history grand?

     

    God bless this wonderful little experiment in freedom we call America
    Jerry
    12 Oct 2011, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • Jerry, thanks for taking the time to explain this to the fascists, Marxists, socialists, Leftists, communists and bigots on the left. Unfortunately, I think it’s in vein and here’s why: The fact based accounting of events that you’ve set forth herein is contrary to the narrative they've been sold. Because it's human nature to avoid pain, whether it’s emotional or physical, most people will go to any length to avoid that pain. For these fascists, Marxists, socialists, Leftists, communists and bigots to accept what you’ve written as the truth, they’d also have to admit to themselves that they’re wrong, then accept that they’ve been manipulated, reconsider who their circle of friends are, where they’re getting their news, what they believe in, etc... They’ll instead take the path of least resistance and keep viewing the world through their godless prism of moral relativism and continue on, living a lie and living in make-believe. It’s too bad, many of them have good hearts but have mislead and manipulated with lie after lie after lie. There’s an old maxim which says that “if you tell a lie enough it becomes the truth.” They’ve been hearing the same lies for so long they just don’t know any better. Truly, I feel sorry for them.
    12 Oct 2011, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • Man, we really gotta stop labeling every other American that doesn't agree with our idea of how to solve our current problems as evil.

     

    Every bloody thread about politics on this site is a slaughterhouse. You learn nothing by instantly closing your ears to anyone who might suggest they are from 'the other side of the aisle' - whatever the hell that fake construct means.

     

    We're not gonna get there if we keep this up, folks. We'll be begging the chinese for scraps. We're all Americans, and for the most part we all want the same things.
    12 Oct 2011, 10:21 PM Reply Like
  • Miscon2, I completely agree with you.

     

    Everyone in this country desires the same fundamental things; a decent job with a livable wage, a quality education for their children, a clean environment and a chance to do better than the generation before us. Before I get lambasted for throwing the environment in that list, let me ask the question...what is the alternative?

     

    It boggles my mind how we have gotten so far away from these basic tenets. Any chance at rational dialogue in the public conversation is out the window. Why, do you ask? Well, both the liberal and conservative ownership class own the message. They set perception through media ownership and controlling the political and social dialogue.

     

    I know you all believe that you are free thinkers, regardless of your perceived ideology, but can anyone at least be honest and acknowledge that they seek out information from sources that are sympathetic to their mindset? Most folks seek information that validates their stance and supports their hypothesis on any given topic. The media machine, regardless of the source, is there to do one thing...reinforce fears and prejudices and capitalize on their complete control over the national discourse.To them, we are the product that they sell. We exist in their framework as a commodity to be sold to the marketing engine of our consumption based economy. As soon as people wake up and realize that we are all being controlled for the purposes of selling more lead tainted plastic Chinese sh1t, the better...

     

    I know I got off topic a little, but the main point is that we are all being swayed based on what we want to hear. And to your point, we have to break free from that and come back to those basic tenets of need. We are truly and divided and conquered and we must find some basic principles that we all agree on (and we do agree) before we completely cave in and find ourselves living in a "once great" country as opposed to the great country it already is.
    18 Oct 2011, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • Miscon2, I completely agree with you.

     

    Everyone in this country desires the same fundamental things; a decent job with a livable wage, a quality education for their children, a clean environment and a chance to do better than the generation before us. Before I get lambasted for throwing the environment in that list, let me ask the question...What is the alternative?

     

    It boggles my mind how we have gotten so far away from these basic tenets. Any chance at rational dialogue in the public conversation is out the window. Why, do you ask? Well, both the liberal and conservative ownership class own the message. They set perception through media ownership and controlling the political and social dialogue.

     

    I know you all believe that you are free thinkers, regardless of your perceived ideology, but can anyone at least be honest and acknowledge that they seek out information from sources that are sympathetic to their mindset? Most folks seek information that validates their stance and supports their hypothesis on any given topic. The media machine, regardless of the source, is there to do one thing...reinforce fears and prejudices and capitalize on their complete control over the national discourse. To them, we are the product that they sell. We exist in their framework as a commodity to be sold to the marketing engine of our consumption based economy. As soon as people wake up and realize that we are all being controlled for the purposes of selling more lead tainted plastic Chinese crap, the better...

     

    I know I got off topic a little, but the main point is that we are all being swayed based on what we want to hear. And to your point, we have to break free from that and come back to those basic tenets of need. We are truly and divided and conquered and we must find some basic principles that we all agree on (and we do agree) before we completely cave in and find ourselves living in a "once great" country as opposed to the great country it already is.
    18 Oct 2011, 01:06 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)