Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kathtoo who wrote (60031)	2/25/2009 10:32:07 AM
From: FJB	8 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224744

Acorn not being investigated? Are you KIDDING? How about Madoff not in jail, and the Republican Wall Street crooks Bernie Madoff is a Democrat. That is why he is not in jail. The rest of your post is equally ignorant, so I won't bother. johnrlott.blogspot.com Bernard Madoff, who appears to be the perpetrator of the largest financial fraud ever, was a politically active player in Washington. He paid the lobbying firm of Dow Lohnes Government Strategies some $400,000 over the last decade to buttonhole regulators and Congressmen. The Madoff clan were also large donors to political candidates. They donated over $380,000 to individual politicians and political action committees since 1993, most of it going to Democrats but with a few prominent Republicans thrown in, such as scandal-tarred Rep. Vito Fossella of Staten Island. As late as September of this year, Mr. Madoff was still giving generously to his favorite political cause: the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee headed by New York Sen. Chuck Schumer. Mr. Madoff contributed $25,000 in September, bringing his total donations to the DSCC to $100,000 over the last three years. Mr. Schumer, who has assiduously cultivated Wall Street for years, also benefited individually from Mr. Madoff's largesse -- taking in $39,000 from the Madoff family for his 1998 and 2004 Senate races. "The great irony here, from a political perspective, is that Republican lack of oversight allowed a lot of well-connected Democrats -- like Madoff -- to run wild," says Joel Kotkin, an urban affairs analyst who is a fellow at the liberal New America Foundation. "Now Obama will have to deal with a series of scandals and meltdowns that have taken place within a financial community -- particularly hedge funds which may be the next locus of the financial crisis -- that have been tilting what is now considered 'left.' It was so much simpler in the old days when the GOP could be easily identified as the party of 'big greed' while most Democrats concentrated on 'little greed,' like government payoffs and sweetheart contracts." Mr. Kotkin told Politico.com that Democrats should worry about increased scrutiny of hedge funds, especially those run by traders such as George Soros: "They are more big-time backers of the Democrats, and may be exposed in the next turning of this potboiler reality we are now experiencing. It could get a bit scary."

To: kathtoo who wrote (60031)	2/25/2009 10:43:54 AM
From: Oral Roberts	10 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224744

Okay. Let's have it. Go ahead and call me every name in the book. I'm ready. Why would I call you names? I mean I feel sorry for you. I do. Your hatred is burning your soul and not allowing you to think rationally. It's really kind of a sad sight to see to be honest.

To: kathtoo who wrote (60031)	2/25/2009 11:47:31 AM
From: lorne	4 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224744

kathtoo..."I've got my ideas about why they're not moving to put the REPUBLICAN CROOKS in jail(THERE ARE SO MANY, WHERE TO START?), but I'll keep that to myself".... Could you maybe name a few? This may interest you...or not. ...."Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing."... ...."The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.".... 'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it." boston.com That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' " In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing. Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else. The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites. The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued. All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit. As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?" Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing. Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

To: kathtoo who wrote (60031)	2/25/2009 3:23:07 PM
From: TimF	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224744

If it wasn't racial in intent, it was racial in effect "Racial in effect" is a rather unusual phrase. It it wasn't racial in intent then it wasn't racial. It was perceived as racial, but that isn't the same thing. The REAL unemployment rate is much higher than the govt' figures state when you take into account the unemployed that have quit looking for work and the part time people that have been laid off or can't find work There is no simple "REAL" unemployment rate. I suppose you could count anyone who doesn't have a job as unemployed, but are you going to count children and retired people, and stay at home parents as unemployed? The normal definition of unemployment is people who are looking for work but have been unable to get it. In any case the unemployment rate has not changed in ways that significantly decrease its measured value since the 1967. Since 1967 people who stopped looking for work where no longer counted as unemployed. As for part time people they have never been, and should never be counted as unemployed, because they have jobs. 11. Regarding broken campaign promises. That statement is a joke right? Hardly a joke even if it might not literally be true. Obama's been racking up broken campaign promises at a good clip, but then I doubt he's actually racked up more just in a month than Bush did in eight years. Some people think President Obama is INTELLIGENT Reasonably so, because he is, as is Cheney and as surprising as it might seem to you, Bush. TO STEM THE DOMINO COLLAPSE THAT WOULD SURELY FOLLOW IF WE DID NOTHING. That's easy to say, but even saying it in all caps doesn't make the argument for you