Big investors like retirement fund managers were not often not allowed to buy investments that were not A+ rated and the mortgage backed securities were not rated that high. The credit default swaps were supposed to act like insurance to cover losses if the mortgage back investments tanked. But since there was no regulation the big investment houses did not have enough funds to cover the losses.
If the federal government had not stepped in many more people would have lost their retirements.
Why did the bankers fear that the mortgage backed investments would tank?
I don't understand this question. Investment bankers like Lehman Bros and AIG did not think they would tank. That is why they were willing to issue the credit default swaps.
Originally posted by BingB: I was not talking about the cause of the crisis. I was talking about the claim that it had been fixed by the time Obama took office. And the claim that it was Obama who "used the crisis" to pass massive federal spending bills.
To be clear, Bush (whom I'm not defending), had already stabilized the economy at that point. He was the one that created TARP... which was meant to be a "loan" for banks and corporations to prevent a run on the banks. Guess who "forgave" these loans when he got into office? ... Obama.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: To be clear, Bush (whom I'm not defending), had already stabilized the economy at that point. He was the one that created TARP... which was meant to be a "loan" for banks and corporations to prevent a run on the banks. Guess who "forgave" these loans when he got into office? ... Obama.
well what was forgiven by which corpRAT ?
as ''From 2008 to 2010, TARP invested $426.4 billion in firms and recouped $441.7 billion in return.''
you claim the obama people did something not in the records
guess the obama derangement is affecting the rump cult
as ''From 2008 to 2010, TARP invested $426.4 billion in firms and recouped $441.7 billion in return.''
you claim the obama people did something not in the records
guess the obama derangement is affecting the rump cult
NO HE DID NOT DO THAT
You're numbers are a bit off... but I am not disputing that the government effectively "made money" on it (which technically they're not allowed to do, but I'm not complaining). But only half of the money loaned was "paid back" by the corporations that borrowed it. The rest of the return came from dividends and interest from the loans.
Right or wrong, Obama forgave the rest of the loans for those who hadn't paid it back, when he determined that the government had effectively been made whole. He was criticized widely for it at the time with the Occupy Wall Street movement... which was created as a direct result of Obama forgiving those loans. The argument of course was that the banks were given bail-outs, but the individual home owners were not. This is of course not true... because many home owners had their mortgages modified and / or completely forgiven. But it was all in the narrative.
The home behind mine in Fort Lauderdale was purchased at its peak (at the time) by a family who absolutely never should have been there. The husband was a trash collector, and the wife was a middle school teacher. The husband could barely read or write and at the time, the state of Florida used to allow you to look at all the property documents for every home. In any case... they bought the home for almost $600k back in 2007 on a middle school teacher's salary. A hurricane hit and damaged their fence, and they didn't have the money to repair it (I just repaired it myself and didn't make a big deal about it). The pool enclosure failed though, and soon they stopped maintaining it. This is a house that is now a 1 million-dollar plus home. In any case, they stopped paying their mortgage almost immediately. They squatted for like 2 years, and then the bank forgave half of their loan... effectively forgiving almost $300k of their loan... which was unbelievable to me. They stayed in there another 6 months, and the home yet again went into foreclosure and they squatted. After a full 8 months, the police came in and escorted them off the property. This was a luxury home in a wealthy neighborhood that was now infested with rats, and completely run down. A home flipper bought it in early 2012 and began renovating it, and sold it a few months later. It's now a ~1.2 million dollar home. I paid my mortgage the entire time... it sure would have been nice for half of my loan to have been forgiven.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-22-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: To be clear, Bush (whom I'm not defending), had already stabilized the economy at that point. He was the one that created TARP... which was meant to be a "loan" for banks and corporations to prevent a run on the banks. Guess who "forgave" these loans when he got into office? ... Obama.
TARP was never any kind of "loan". It was using federal government funds to purchase "troubles assets". There was no forgiveness of any loan. Instead the government held the assets until their price went back up and sold them at a profit.
But the economy was far from stabilized when Obama took office. The markets continued to tank and the banks continued to lose money for months. The stock market did not begin to recover until March when the Obama administration announced its Public-Private Investment Program (P-PIP).
Originally posted by BingB:TARP was never any kind of "loan". It was using federal government funds to purchase "troubles assets". There was no forgiveness of any loan. Instead the government held the assets until their price went back up and sold them at a profit.
But the economy was far from stabilized when Obama took office. The markets continued to tank and the banks continued to lose money for months. The stock market did not begin to recover until March when the Obama administration announced its Public-Private Investment Program (P-PIP).
Yes, we can all quote from Wikipedia BingB... we all know what TARP is.
Then why did you call it a "loan" and talk about it being forgiven by Obama?
Because it was. It was expected that these banks would be required to buy back these assets, as many of them did. It was leveraged solely for the intent on preventing a run on the banks. The equities that weren't were merged into groups like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack.
There is now audio and video of the AZGOP chairman offering a bribe to Kari Lake on behalf of "very powerful people" to get her to drop out. She turned down very good money, to do the right thing.
I have been telling you. I don't care what you believe. It is not my job to lead you to the water. You will not drink, anyway. Why should you when KoolAid tastes so sweet?
There is now audio and video of the AZGOP chairman offering a bribe to Kari Lake on behalf of "very powerful people" to get her to drop out. She turned down very good money, to do the right thing.
I have been telling you. I don't care what you believe. It is not my job to lead you to the water. You will not drink, anyway. Why should you when KoolAid tastes so sweet?
We ain't done yet.
The Republican Party offered her a bribe (not actually a bribe per se on behalf of her not being an elected official, but the colloquial use) because she’s another extreme MAGA candidate that is poison for the party. It’s hardly surprising, but yes, it’s definitely a revealing recording. My question would be if the people “back east” asking for this are GOP strategists working for the Party or other Republican senators.
The Republican Party offered her a bribe (not actually a bribe per se on behalf of her not being an elected official, but the colloquial use) because she’s another extreme MAGA candidate that is poison for the party. It’s hardly surprising, but yes, it’s definitely a revealing recording. My question would be if the people “back east” asking for this are GOP strategists working for the Party or other Republican senators.
This is very short-sighted, and it's definitely not other politicians. The people who lobby and manipulate the Republican party are the exact same people who manipulate the Democrat party. In Russia, they are called "oligarchs."
There is now audio and video of the AZGOP chairman offering a bribe to Kari Lake on behalf of "very powerful people" to get her to drop out. She turned down very good money, to do the right thing.
I have been telling you. I don't care what you believe. It is not my job to lead you to the water. You will not drink, anyway. Why should you when KoolAid tastes so sweet?
We ain't done yet.
Of course the Republican want lake to drop out. She is still trying to pass off that lie that no one believes any more about the election being stolen.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Because it was. It was expected that these banks would be required to buy back these assets, as many of them did..
First of all there was not requirement that any of these banks buy back any of these assets.
But if they did then that means Obama did not "forgive" any thing.
Your claim that TARP was a loan and Obama forgave it just is not true.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: This is very short-sighted, and it's definitely not other politicians. The people who lobby and manipulate the Republican party are the exact same people who manipulate the Democrat party. In Russia, they are called "oligarchs."
If I remember the recording correctly, the people pressing the GOP head asked "Are there any companies out there who can hire her?" That doesn't sound like an oligarch to me, it sounds like a party strategist, which is why I assumed the above.
But certainly, if you have more info than what's in the recording, that would definitely change the theory.
[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 01-24-2024).]
IT SMELLS CLEAN IT UP you keep dropping SOS rightwing bought the site so it only puts up nut-con BS never real facts like how the trump is failing and falling apart
think he is raving now ??? just wait until the money starts to be taken !!!!
he may spontaneously combust when they come for the money
old and evil driven by greed
Götterdämmerung The Twilight of the Gods
Brünnhilde enters and tells everyone how she promised Siegfried her love. Gutrune curses Hagen and falls onto her brother’s dead body. Brünnhilde orders a funeral pyre (a fire) to be prepared. She sings to Wotan that Siegfried is now at peace in death and that she understands more now. She takes the ring and promises to return it to the Rhine Maidens. She lights the fire which flares up and she rides on her horse Grane into the flames. The whole building catches fire, and the Rhine overflows and puts it out. Hagen jumps into the water trying to get the ring from the Rhine Maidens who drown him and finally take it back. The flood dies down and Valhalla (the gods’ palace) is lit up by the fire. The gods and the heroes die in the flames. The Twilight of the Gods has happened and Brünnhilde has redeemed the world with her love.
IT SMELLS CLEAN IT UP you keep dropping SOS rightwing bought the site so it only puts up nut-con BS never real facts like how the trump is failing and falling apart
think he is raving now ??? just wait until the money starts to be taken !!!!
he may spontaneously combust when they come for the money
old and evil driven by greed
Götterdämmerung The Twilight of the Gods
Brünnhilde enters and tells everyone how she promised Siegfried her love. Gutrune curses Hagen and falls onto her brother’s dead body. Brünnhilde orders a funeral pyre (a fire) to be prepared. She sings to Wotan that Siegfried is now at peace in death and that she understands more now. She takes the ring and promises to return it to the Rhine Maidens. She lights the fire which flares up and she rides on her horse Grane into the flames. The whole building catches fire, and the Rhine overflows and puts it out. Hagen jumps into the water trying to get the ring from the Rhine Maidens who drown him and finally take it back. The flood dies down and Valhalla (the gods’ palace) is lit up by the fire. The gods and the heroes die in the flames. The Twilight of the Gods has happened and Brünnhilde has redeemed the world with her love.
Please cite one MSM source that provides both sides of an issue, same article or in two articles. You can't, can you? The Leftist media only spouts the same kind of BS you do, and then censors speeches from candidate Trump, even though for years they fed their audience outright lies. FOX may be right leaning, but there is truth in their reporting.
As for the rest of your post, nice copy and paste. You should cite sources when you use someone else's words. Otherwise, it's known as plagiarism. And that's a page from stumblin' Joe's playbook.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 01-25-2024).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: Please cite one [Mainstream Media] source that provides both sides of an issue, same article or in two articles.
You can't, can you?
<SNIP>
What an absurd remark here, from "olejoedad."
In just about 5 minutes, I turned up two very recent op-ed columns in the New York Times about the idea that Trump is not qualified to become President again because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and should therefore not be allowed to be listed on ballots as a candidate to become the next President.
One issue... and two very different and contrasting opinions about it in the New York Times.
I offer this as a quantum of evidence—not that difficult for me to have found—that olejoedad's remark about Mainstream Media never presenting "two sides" of an issue is substantially misleading and ill-considered.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-26-2024).]
From a discredited left leaning subscription based newspaper that caters to their metrosexual subscription base. NYC is the heartland of the Democrats and LWNJ.
From a discredited left leaning subscription based newspaper that caters to their metrosexual subscription base. NYC is the heartland of the Democrats and LWNJ.
Try again, rinse.
If a "discredited, left-leaning, subscription-based newspaper that caters to their metrosexual subscription base" presents both sides of a prominent news story—like whether Trump should be on the ballot—what point do you have?
Are you saying that the New York Times isn't an example of Mainstream Media?
I could find more of the same "both sides presented" in the New York Times. I could find "both sides" in the Washington Post... the Los Angeles Times... possibly even The Atlantic, on certain issues.
These are typical of the news organizations that MSNBC relies on for much of the material that they present in their daily TV programming.
What do you mean when you say "MSM" or Mainstream Media?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-25-2024).]
From a discredited left leaning subscription based newspaper that caters to their metrosexual subscription base. NYC is the heartland of the Democrats and LWNJ.
Try again, rinse.
I don't understand.
You are actually arguing that the New York Times in NOT mainstream media?
What exactly is your definition of "mainstream media"?
It would be fun to see what "olejoedad" might come up with, were he to attempt to respond to the three questioning remarks that were just addressed to him, one right after the other:
Originally posted by olejoedad: Please cite one [Mainstream Media] source that provides both sides of an issue, same article or in two articles.
You can't, can you?
What an absurd remark here, from "olejoedad."
In just about 5 minutes, I turned up two very recent op-eds in the New York Times about the idea that Trump is not qualified to become President again because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and should therefore not be allowed to be listed on ballots as a candidate to become the next President. One of the opinion columns boiled down to "Yes" and the other... "No." https://www.fiero.nl/forum/...L/000994-5.html#p191
Here’s a dirty little secret about those expensive, unpopular Trump tax cuts: We’re probably stuck with them for good, because neither party seems to have the political courage to let them lapse. Not the Republicans who supposedly care about fiscal responsibility, and not the Democrats who are on record as hating them.
I offer this as a second quantum of evidence—not that difficult for me to have found—that olejoedad's remark about Mainstream Media never presenting "two sides" of an issue is substantially misleading and ill-considered.
What say you?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-26-2024).]
Continuing in much the same vein, after visiting the New York Times and the Washington Post, I now direct your gaze to the Los Angeles Times: another nationally recognized pillar of the Mainstream Media that olejoedad is so dismissive of, that he actually disses it.
"Op-Ed: California needs to keep the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open to meet its climate goals" Steven Chu and Ernest Moniz for the Los Angeles Times; November 21, 2021. https://www.latimes.com/opi...hange-zero-emissions
We need Diablo Canyon... we don't need Diablo Canyon... it's like "Two Things at Once"
Celebrated NFL Kansas City Chiefs player Travis Kelce is featured in a "Two Things at Once" commercial from Pfizer, aimed at boosting uptake of their latest Covid-19 "booster" vaccine.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad: Please cite one [Mainstream Media] source that provides both sides of an issue, same article or in two articles.
You can't, can you?
Say what?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-27-2024).]
