Brand Spanking New Election Thread

[John Smith]

Text of S. 190

 

Actions on bill: Essentially died in Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

 

 

So you are saying that republicans recognized that fannie/freddie were driving at high speed into a wall, they had control of the wheel, and they did...nothing. Interesting. Also do you note that a law similar to the 2003 proposal passed a couple of weeks ago? Similar in that it put fannie/freddie under the control of one agency. Ultimately though we know the annswer...even though republicans re-wrote the regulations for financial institutions in the 1990's it is till the democrats fault.

[Sir Stewart]

Sorry to talk about a local election, but yesterday Boston voters successfully removed a repeatedly corrupt incumbent state senator in favor of a former school teacher from my neighborhood.

A Senate fixture toppled

About a 200 vote difference. Voting counts!

[kwall]

So you are saying that republicans recognized that fannie/freddie were driving at high speed into a wall, they had control of the wheel, and they did...nothing. Interesting. Also do you note that a law similar to the 2003 proposal passed a couple of weeks ago? Similar in that it put fannie/freddie under the control of one agency. Ultimately though we know the annswer...even though republicans re-wrote the regulations for financial institutions in the 1990's it is till the democrats fault.

i think his point was that neither the republicans as a whole nor the democrats as a whole did anything. that's been agreed upon. but at least mccain raised a red flag, inspite of his being a republican.

[bleedorange]

So you are saying that republicans recognized that fannie/freddie were driving at high speed into a wall, they had control of the wheel, and they did...nothing. Interesting. Also do you note that a law similar to the 2003 proposal passed a couple of weeks ago? Similar in that it put fannie/freddie under the control of one agency.

 

 

Look dude, I know that Republicans have kicked your dog and are responsible for all the problems in this world, but Republicans do not comprise one entity who do everything together. There are individual Republicans and individual Democrats -- some are good, some are bad. I haven't looked up the particulars on this specific Senate bill, but since it died in committee, I doubt there is much to find without a single vote. The only thing that is obvious are the sponsors of the bill, which is what I was trying to point out.

 

But, since in your world, all Republicans are the same and named George W. Bush, the point was obviously missed. Oh well.

[John Smith]

While perusing the congressional record I did see quite a bit of discussion on limiting the compensation of Freddie/Fannie officials around 2003/2004 but it dried up pretty quickly. The cynic in me might think that the management changed to someone more policitically palletable to the steards of congress.

 

Anyhow since i know how much republicans prize education and learning, here is an article written by a nobel prize winnniing economic professor...

 

Commentary: How to prevent the next Wall Street crisis

Story Highlights

Joseph Stiglitz: Fed pumped too much money, aiding housing bubble

 

New-fangled instruments hid overuse of borrowing, Stiglitz says

 

Executives followed short-term interests and magnified risks, he says

 

Stiglitz: Widespread changes needed to prevent future crises

 

By Joseph Stiglitz

Special to CNN

Editor's note: Joseph E. Stiglitz, professor at Columbia University, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for his work on the economics of information and was on the climate change panel that shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008. Stiglitz, a supporter of Barack Obama, was a member and later chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration before joining the World Bank as chief economist and senior vice president. He is the co-author with Linda Bilmes of the "Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict."

 

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Many seem taken aback by the depth and severity of the current financial turmoil. I was among several economists who saw it coming and warned about the risks.

 

There is ample blame to be shared; but the purpose of parsing out blame is to figure out how to make a recurrence less likely.

 

President Bush famously said, a little while ago, that the problem is simple: Too many houses were built. Yes, but the answer is too simplistic: Why did that happen?

 

One can say the Fed failed twice, both as a regulator and in the conduct of monetary policy. Its flood of liquidity (money made available to borrow at low interest rates) and lax regulations led to a housing bubble. When the bubble broke, the excessively leveraged loans made on the basis of overvalued assets went sour.

 

For all the new-fangled financial instruments, this was just another one of those financial crises based on excess leverage, or borrowing, and a pyramid scheme.

 

The new "innovations" simply hid the extent of systemic leverage and made the risks less transparent; it is these innovations that have made this collapse so much more dramatic than earlier financial crises. But one needs to push further: Why did the Fed fail?

 

First, key regulators like Alan Greenspan didn't really believe in regulation; when the excesses of the financial system were noted, they called for self-regulation -- an oxymoron.

 

Second, the macro-economy was in bad shape with the collapse of the tech bubble. The tax cut of 2001 was not designed to stimulate the economy but to give a largesse to the wealthy -- the group that had been doing so well over the last quarter-century.

 

The coup d'grace was the Iraq War, which contributed to soaring oil prices. Money that used to be spent on American goods now got diverted abroad. The Fed took seriously its responsibility to keep the economy going.

 

It did this by replacing the tech bubble with a new bubble, a housing bubble. Household savings plummeted to zero, to the lowest level since the Great Depression. It managed to sustain the economy, but the way it did it was shortsighted: America was living on borrowed money and borrowed time.

 

Finally, at the center of blame must be the financial institutions themselves. They -- and even more their executives -- had incentives that were not well aligned with the needs of our economy and our society.

 

They were amply rewarded, presumably for managing risk and allocating capital, which was supposed to improve the efficiency of the economy so much that it justified their generous compensation. But they misallocated capital; they mismanaged risk -- they created risk.

 

They did what their incentive structures were designed to do: focusing on short-term profits and encouraging excessive risk-taking.

 

This is not the first crisis in our financial system, not the first time that those who believe in free and unregulated markets have come running to the government for bail-outs. There is a pattern here, one that suggests deep systemic problems -- and a variety of solutions:

 

1. We need first to correct incentives for executives, reducing the scope for conflicts of interest and improving shareholder information about dilution in share value as a result of stock options. We should mitigate the incentives for excessive risk-taking and the short-term focus that has so long prevailed, for instance, by requiring bonuses to be paid on the basis of, say, five-year returns, rather than annual returns.

 

2. Secondly, we need to create a financial product safety commission, to make sure that products bought and sold by banks, pension funds, etc. are safe for "human consumption." Consenting adults should be given great freedom to do whatever they want, but that does not mean they should gamble with other people's money. Some may worry that this may stifle innovation. But that may be a good thing considering the kind of innovation we had -- attempting to subvert accounting and regulations. What we need is more innovation addressing the needs of ordinary Americans, so they can stay in their homes when economic conditions change.

 

3. We need to create a financial systems stability commission to take an overview of the entire financial system, recognizing the interrelations among the various parts, and to prevent the excessive systemic leveraging that we have just experienced.

 

4. We need to impose other regulations to improve the safety and soundness of our financial system, such as "speed bumps" to limit borrowing. Historically, rapid expansion of lending has been responsible for a large fraction of crises and this crisis is no exception.

 

5. We need better consumer protection laws, including laws that prevent predatory lending.

 

6. We need better competition laws. The financial institutions have been able to prey on consumers through credit cards partly because of the absence of competition. But even more importantly, we should not be in situations where a firm is "too big to fail." If it is that big, it should be broken up.

 

These reforms will not guarantee that we will not have another crisis. The ingenuity of those in the financial markets is impressive. Eventually, they will figure out how to circumvent whatever regulations are imposed. But these reforms will make another crisis of this kind less likely, and, should it occur, make it less severe than it otherwise would be.

 

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

 

 

Look dude, I know that Republicans have kicked your dog and are responsible for all the problems in this world, but Republicans do not comprise one entity who do everything together. There are individual Republicans and individual Democrats -- some are good, some are bad. I haven't looked up the particulars on this specific Senate bill, but since it died in committee, I doubt there is much to find without a single vote. The only thing that is obvious are the sponsors of the bill, which is what I was trying to point out.

 

But, since in your world, all Republicans are the same and named George W. Bush, the point was obviously missed. Oh well.

 

 

Have you not paid attention to the last decade? By all accounts the republicans have been marching in lock step for ten years now. It makes it hard for mr maverick to look like a maverick when 90+% of the time he votes with 90% of the republicans. By the way in your world it seems like all bad things eminate from the deomcrats and they are the source ofall problems and the source of nothing good. Mr Kettle you are black sir.

[Doug C]

Yeah dude! McCain is a Republican maverick. He goes his own way. He's not some some lock step ideologue like Olympia Snowe. Check out her disgusting voting record: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/olympia_snowe.htm

BLEAAACCHHH!! Thank the stars he didn't pick her as his running mate! It would be the same old, same old. Good on ya, Straight Talk! WHOOT!!!

[LouieB]

Sorry to talk about a local election, but yesterday Boston voters successfully removed a repeatedly corrupt incumbent state senator in favor of a former school teacher from my neighborhood.

A Senate fixture toppled

About a 200 vote difference. Voting counts!

Congratulations...all politics is local...

 

LouieB

[bleedorange]

Have you not paid attention to the last decade? By all accounts the republicans have been marching in lock step for ten years now. It makes it hard for mr maverick to look like a maverick when 90+% of the time he votes with 90% of the republicans. By the way in your world it seems like all bad things eminate from the deomcrats and they are the source ofall problems and the source of nothing good. Mr Kettle you are black sir.

 

 

Clearly you are not even reading anything I have said. I have never said everything bad happens because of Democrats and I even pointed out how Republicans are probably as much to blame for failing to pass any kind of reform in this issue. For instance, Barney Frank who originally stated he didn't think it was necessary has later come out and said that he didn't vote for anything because of Republican-added amendments. So the blame can also fall on political infighting and partisanship.

 

However, I was merely looking at the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac situation which I think largely stems from Democratic leadership within the companies and Democratic policies beginning in 1968 with its emphasis on providing homes to people whether they could afford them or not.

[John Smith]

However, I was merely looking at the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac situation which I think largely stems from Democratic leadership within the companies and Democratic policies beginning in 1968 with its emphasis on providing homes to people whether they could afford them or not.

 

And I am looking at it from a perspective of the republicans pet love of removing or weakening regulation. In the long run you will find that regardless of who was running the organizations, that it was the lack of oversite, the weakening of regulations of all financial institutions that is causing this downfall. You are simply looking at Freddie/Fannie and asigning blame. I'm looking at the bigger picture of the whole mortgage industry of which fannie/freddie just happen to be the largest piece. But regulation of the whole financial industry has been suffciently weakened to the point where we have the mess we have today. The bluring of the lines between banks/s&l's/thrifts/brokers/etc... has led to what we have. At this point (obviously too late) I think we can all agree (said tongue in cheek) that business will not always do the right thing and that some sort of referee (regulations, the government) is needed to step in and say whoa that's not right. And I guarantee that once this mess gets settled regulations put back in place that a new generation of politicians will come in and do the sme thing again.

[EL the Famous]

However, I was merely looking at the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac situation which I think largely stems from Democratic leadership within the companies and Democratic policies beginning in 1968 with its emphasis on providing homes to people whether they could afford them or not.

 

I think that there is some truth to the concept of an easier road to home ownership being part of the problem. Where I would differ in your view, is that it largely stems from it versus the abuse of the concept. Also, as John Smith stated, this mortgage debacle goes way beyond Fannie/Freddie.

 

Bigger than that, our overall economic woes are not just mortgage-related...it's a huge part of it, but there are plenty of other contributors to worry about.

[IRememberDBoon]

If a Dem was in the White House I wonder if Republicans would be blaming this mess on him/her??

[bjorn_skurj]

I nominate Joseph E. Stiglitz for Fed chairman.

[John Smith]

If a Dem was in the White House I wonder if Republicans would be blaming this mess on him/her??

 

Democrats don't need to be in the white house to get the blame for anything.

[bobbob1313]

so it's fucking everyone's fault. What a shock. Like most things in our country, blame can't be conveniently passed along party lines.

[John Smith]

so it's fucking everyone's fault. What a shock. Like most things in our country, blame can't be conveniently passed along party lines.

 

See this is a point where we just have to acknowledge that we will be disagreeing, because I see this as being the fault of those who pushed for and passed deregualtion and the enron bill.

[bjorn_skurj]

It would be nice if we actually had a free market.

We did once. It was called "The Gilded Age," and was characterized by a lot of wealth at the top and a lot of misery at the bottom, not to mention unsafe food and poisonous patent medicines. I prefer a slightly less free market.

[lost highway]

Is there not a difference between the liberal ideology's instinct to provide necessaries for every citizen and a pundit's interest in business growth and maximizing profit by designing tricky loans that uneducated poor people can afford to pay (until their payments baloon)?

[fatheadfred]

See this is a point where we just have to acknowledge that we will be disagreeing, because I see this as being the fault of those who pushed for and passed deregualtion and the enron bill.

Whereas this mystery person was McPain's chief campaign econ advisor til he flubbed and Obama has courted this Stiglitz fellow. Black and white, black and white. -Darth Sidius

[John Smith]

You know why are we arguing abotu the financial meltdown of the united states when we have good news to talk about? Good news like this...

 

 

Toilet-paper researchers create 3-ply tissue Tue Sep 16, 7:36 PM ET

 

 

 

If two-ply toilet paper is good, then three-ply tissue must be better. At least that's what toilet-paper researchers in northeastern Wisconsin hope.

 

Yes, there is such a thing as a toilet-paper researcher. And a team of them at Georgia Pacific's Innovation Institute in Neenah has come up with a three-ply version of its Quilted Northern product.

 

The new product will be launched Monday. The company touts the toilet tissue as "ultra-soft" and says it plans to market the product to women 45 and older who view their bathroom as a "sanctuary for quality time."

 

Industry analyst Bill Schmitz is skeptical. He said extra layers make toilet paper stronger, not softer, although he said Georgia Pacific may have added extra fibers for softness.

[Sir Stewart]

"analyst"

[caliber66]

Industry analyst Bill Schmitz is skeptical. He said extra layers make toilet paper stronger, not softer, although he said Georgia Pacific may have added extra fibers for softness.

I know when I'm in the sanctuary having my quality time, some extra fiber has a major effect on softness.

[John Smith]

I know when I'm in the sanctuary having my quality time, some extra fiber has a major effect on softness.

 

Don't they always tell us that we need more fiber?

[John Smith]

My last word on the subject of the financial meltdown, but not my last word on three ply...from the WAPO...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1603732_pf.html

 

In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband Internet market, warning that "the potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation." Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.

 

That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments.

 

McCain now condemns the executives at those companies for pursuing the ambitions that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act made possible, saying that "in an endless quest for easy money, they dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand."

 

He said the misconduct was aided by "casual oversight by regulatory agencies in Washington," where he said oversight is "scattered, unfocused and ineffective."

 

"They haven't been doing their job right," McCain said yesterday, "or else we wouldn't have these massive problems on Wall Street, and that's a fact. At their worst, they've been caught up in Washington turf wars instead of working together to protect investors and the public interest."

 

The 32 and 33 acts were in place specifically to protect the financial integrety of the various institutions. In the 1980's those acts were breached and look what happened. Now in the 1990's they were pretty much circumvented and look what happend.

[fatheadfred]

"analyst"

Anal yst. Toilet paper research. huhuhu

[Sir Stewart]

Anal yst. Toilet paper research. huhuhu

 

Thanks for filtering my post through Playskool's My First Interweb.