Why is Rick Perry in the lead?

Only a pinhead could not see a significant difference between being in TOTAL CONTROL of a corp. and having 1/3 control of the country and no control of some significant issues like the budget and legislating law....a bully pulpit doesn not give one TOTAL CONTROL over anything but your mouth.....

Ken Lay robbed his company, along with Skilling and others....
Bush lost control of Congress and had little power to force his policies on anyone, could not legislate anything, could not get his budgets passed....a Democratic congress controlled ALL of that....
He could do nothing but go along to get along with whatever they demanded.....
 
How 'bout this, Yurt: you can clear YOUR name if you'll admit that all you did for days after Libya started was try to compare it to Iraq, and said it was an invasion just like Iraq, because there were "boots on the ground."

How 'bout that?
 
bravo said:
Only a pinhead could not see a significant difference between being in TOTAL CONTROL of a corp. and having 1/3 control of the country and no control of some significant issues like the budget and legislating law....a bully pulpit doesn not give one TOTAL CONTROL over anything but your mouth.....

Ken Lay robbed his company, along with Skilling and others....
Bush lost control of Congress and had little power to force his policies on anyone, could not legislate anything, could not get his budgets passed....a Democratic congress controlled ALL of that....
He could do nothing but go along to get along.....
Click to expand...

Ah- that's right. It's back to Barney Frank being so much more powerful that POTUS.
 
Onceler said:
Ah- that's right. It's back to Barney Frank being so much more powerful that POTUS.
Click to expand...

Not really....its more like Bush not having any control over Barney Frank.....the same as it is for every president and members of congress....
You're being a pinhead forces you to view everything from a warped perspective....
 
Onceler said:
How 'bout this, Yurt: you can clear YOUR name if you'll admit that all you did for days after Libya started was try to compare it to Iraq, and said it was an invasion just like Iraq, because there were "boots on the ground."

How 'bout that?
Click to expand...

still stuck on your obsession i see. you made the claim you back it up. or, you could simply stop lying about i said, move on and focus more on politics instead of these imaginary things you falsely claim i said.

i mean really, how many threads are you going to talk about in? 5? 10? you're way to obsessed with YOU'RE A LIAR.
 
Superfreak said:
Fannie and Freddie were some of the largest BUYERS of subprime debt.... HENCE their SUBPRIME debt problems.
Click to expand...


They weren't BUYERS of SUBPRIME debt. They were BUYERS of AAA-rated securities that turned out to be horseshit. HENCE their debt problems. The closest Fannie and Freddie got to subprime was some Alt-A and A- conventional loans. They didn't do the NINJA nonsense, teaser rates, ARMs or any of the crazy shit.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
They weren't BUYERS of SUBPRIME debt. They were BUYERS of AAA-rated securities that turned out to be horseshit. HENCE their debt problems. The closest Fannie and Freddie got to subprime was some Alt-A and A- conventional loans. They didn't do the NINJA nonsense, teaser rates, ARMs or any of the crazy shit.
Click to expand...

In January 2007, as years of loose mortgage lending were about to send the nation's housing market into devastating decline, Fannie Mae chief executive Daniel H. Mudd wrote a confidential memo to his board.

Discussing the company's successes, Mudd said one of Fannie Mae's achievements in 2006 was expanding its involvement in the market for subprime and other nontraditional mortgages. He called it a step "toward optimizing our business."

A month later, Fannie Mae outlined plans to further expand its activities in the subprime market. The company recognized the already weak performance of subprime loans but predicted that they would get better in 2007, according to another Fannie Mae document.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111.html
 
Yurt said:
In January 2007, as years of loose mortgage lending were about to send the nation's housing market into devastating decline, Fannie Mae chief executive Daniel H. Mudd wrote a confidential memo to his board.

Discussing the company's successes, Mudd said one of Fannie Mae's achievements in 2006 was expanding its involvement in the market for subprime and other nontraditional mortgages. He called it a step "toward optimizing our business."

A month later, Fannie Mae outlined plans to further expand its activities in the subprime market. The company recognized the already weak performance of subprime loans but predicted that they would get better in 2007, according to another Fannie Mae document.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111.html
Click to expand...


That article isn't terribly well written. It conflates true "subprime" lending, which Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac could not do, and Alt-A and A-minus, which I already acknowledged Fannie and Freddie engaged in. Also, while it says that Fannie and Freddie bought subprime loans, they really didn't. They bought mortgage backed securities which is different from buying individual subprime loans.

Here's a decent article on the topic:

http://www.economist.com/node/11751139

I'm not at all suggesting that the underwriting standards of Fannie and Freddy were impeccable. Obviously, they were not. But they were not the big players in the subprime lending market by a long long long way.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
They weren't BUYERS of SUBPRIME debt. They were BUYERS of AAA-rated securities that turned out to be horseshit. HENCE their debt problems. The closest Fannie and Freddie got to subprime was some Alt-A and A- conventional loans. They didn't do the NINJA nonsense, teaser rates, ARMs or any of the crazy shit.
Click to expand...

????.....actually, didn't they buy junk mortgages and turn them INTO AAA-rated securities by guaranteeing them?.......

David St. Hubbins said:
Here's a decent article on the topic:

http://www.economist.com/node/11751139
Click to expand...

from your link....
According to CreditSights, a research group, Fannie and Freddie were counterparties in $2.3 trillion-worth of derivative transactions, related to their hedging activities.
Click to expand...

and...
In a speech to Congress in 2004, Alan Greenspan, then the chairman of the Fed, said: “Without the expectation of government support in a crisis, such leverage would not be possible without a significantly higher cost of debt.” The likelihood of “extraordinary support” from the government is cited by Standard & Poor’s (S&P), a rating agency, in explaining its rating of the firms’ debt.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
Fannie and Freddie were some of the largest BUYERS of subprime debt.... HENCE their SUBPRIME debt problems.
Click to expand...

Right wing bullshit. Your crap has been debunked more than once on this board. Are you THAT fucking stupid, or THAT fucking dishonest?

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.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz1WC2kKRqO
 
Superfreak said:
I was mocking the stupidity of your OP. You tried to paint everyone with a broad brush and it was incredibly IRONIC that you mentioned Perry's 'inexperience' in business when you voted for someone who had NO experience.
Click to expand...

So still no answer to my question, just mocking the questioner... I see!
 
David St. Hubbins said:
They weren't BUYERS of SUBPRIME debt. They were BUYERS of AAA-rated securities that turned out to be horseshit. HENCE their debt problems. The closest Fannie and Freddie got to subprime was some Alt-A and A- conventional loans. They didn't do the NINJA nonsense, teaser rates, ARMs or any of the crazy shit.
Click to expand...

LOL... yes, AAA rated pieces of shit... they KNEW they were subprime mortgages backing the CDO's, they just went along with the stupidity that putting a bunch of subprimes together somehow made them AAA.
 
Bfgrn said:
Right wing bullshit. Your crap has been debunked more than once on this board. Are you THAT fucking stupid, or THAT fucking dishonest?

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.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz1WC2kKRqO
Click to expand...

Hey moron.... their PERCENTAGE of loans went down because the BIG INVESTMENT banks started buying.... which meant Fannie and Freddie had competition for the loans. Prior to that, the investment banks were not big buyers of the CDO's. They were SELLERS. Now, why don't you tell us why it is that the article only looks at a three year window? Why not show the complete picture of what happened since the repeal of Glass Steagall?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top