Contrary to the lies spread on Fox Noise, private sector loans, not Freddie or Fannie Mae triggered the economic credit crisis we are not facing.

Federal Housing data shows that the private sector loans were at the core of the sub prime mortgage crisis.

The reason for them spreading this slime is that the Republican Party is all about blaming minorities, specially blacks, for American problems... in order to appeal to their racist base who are uneducated folks who are motivated by racial hatred.

1. Blaming Blacks for the economic crisis
2. Hate and lies directed at Obama (compare Obama to Osama is a campaign tactic)
3. John McCain stirring up mobs who yell Kill him! He's a terrorist! And worst.

The Republican Party is a racist party at its rural and southern base.

How disgraceful.

We are voting tomorrow in Ontario. I am so glad that our politics aren't that dirty, but there is a lot at stake here too and a lot of pride as well.

Your politics in the last few weeks have been very amusing. Especially Sara Pallin.

Why, thanks, I love to be entertaining as well as *always being correct*. It makes for a good time for all. :D

Over the years, Choux, and having lived in the States for a number of years, I always found U.S. politics much more interesting and entertaining then Canadian. Ours are always so staid and proper, so very British. But get the job done without hassle.

So AIG's credit default swaps had something to do with it?

Re Canadian politics :
Politics in Canada turn ugly - and dangerous - International Herald Tribune

The liquidity crisis began with the bursting of the United States housing bubble and high default rates on "subprime" and adjustable rate mortgages. You cannot deny this basic fact .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The liquidity crisis began with the bursting of the United States housing bubble and high default rates on "subprime" and adjustable rate mortgages. You cannot deny this basic fact .

---

Hello tom:

I can deny it, because it ain't so.

What CAUSED it, was the bundling of these loans and the UNREGULATED credit default swaps that ensued. It's THESE default swaps that are NOT being traded and are "clogging" the credit market.

The default swaps were created and traded under the watchful eye (Bwa, ha ha) of those sharp eyed Bush regulators. But, it turns out that the regulators the dufus hired didn't even know what a credit default swap was. The ONLY thing they knew about them, was that their buddies on Wall Street were getting rich off them, so they MUST be cool.

However, because credit default swaps are too deep for the average Republican to understand, they naturally gravitate to the basics. Besides, the dufus doesn't want the public to know exactly HOW MUCH his friends made, so he changes the conversation, and you Republicans go for the okee doak.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

re Canadian politics :
Politics in Canada turn ugly - and dangerous - International Herald Tribune

---

We have had a lot of vandalism in our areas this year. I don't think this incident was political rivals doing the damage. There are strict rules and reupercussions available for those who do. I believe it was young vandals cashing in on the opportunity.

I don't know why you would take my post to task, tomder, by putting that in to make a point. I was talking about political rivals in the US band mouthing each other with some really nasty inuendo.

I would be remiss if I did not point out the CDC began as an investment tool in or around 1997 under the direction of the National Economic Council (NEC ) chairman and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Robert Rubin and later as Tresury Sec .It is during that administration that credit default swaps were born.

Together withFederal Reserve chairman (the maestro) Alan Greenspan, Rubin strongly opposed the regulation of derivatives, when such regulation was proposed by then-head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Brooksley Born.

According to the New York Slimes "In November 1999, senior regulators — including Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin — recommended that Congress permanently strip the CFTC of regulatory authority over derivatives." This advice was accepted and derivatives were keep clear of regulation by the CFTC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/bu...PWVICpKJP2SUfg

Of course if you are looking for a common denominator all you have to do is look at the infiltration of Goldman Sachs executives into key parts of government over the last 2 decades. Rubin ,Jon Corzine, Hank Paulson ,Joshua Bolten,James Johnson (also former Fannie Mae).

Hello again, tom:

Well to use Sara Palin speak, shame on those golly gosh darn Democrats.

But, I wonder what those Republicans were doing while they were in charge of ALL THREE branches of government for 8 of the last 10 years.

Those golly gosh darn Republicans... How did those bad Democrats DO THAT?

excon

Ex ;The Republicans also bought into the cr*p that home ownership for everyone is a good idea. Construction workers are voters too and the housing boom was good business for construction.

Quote:

---

Federal Housing data shows that the private sector loans were at the core of the sub prime mortgage crisis.

---

You cannot ignore the Governments role in intimidating Private Companies into ignoring traditional lending practices and taking on unqualified risky customers to keep the Feds, or Acorn, as their agents, off their backs.

Freddie and Fannie , the two US Government Sponsored Entities responsible for half of the mortgages in the US had no role in this ? These two quasi-government entities were directly responsible for encouraging sub-prime mortgages by guaranteeing them to the securities market. This implicit guarantee is the reason credit derivatives could come into existence.
Of course now "implicit "has become “explicit.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You cannot ignore the Governments role in intimidating Private Companies into ignoring traditional lending practices and taking on unqualified risky customers to keep the Feds, or Acorn, as their agents, off their backs.

---

Hello again, tom:

Yes, I certainly can!

During the present debacle, I've heard CEO after CEO blaming everybody but himself for the failure of the enterprise left in his care. I've read your diatribe about how the banks were FORCED to make these bad loans by the bad law that the bad Democrats passed...

But, I don't buy it for a minute. What I buy, is the CEO cashing in on the opportunities, cause the competition is. IF the investments weren't prudent, NO MATTER why, then they weren't prudent, and that's just so. The responsibility to run a prudent bank falls on the CEO, and the Board of Directors.

If you're telling me that NO bank refused, then ALL the banks were mismanaged, and none of them deserve a bailout. Because, a bailout will ENCOURAGE further imprudent actions.

However, my bet is that there ARE banks that resisted.

excon

You don't buy it even when it was confirmed that Obama was a legal council for ACORN against Citibank over this very issue ?
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

I've already posted enough concuring evidence about HUD and Fannie and Freddie participation ;even from the NY Slimes .

Believe what you wish .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Of course if you are looking for a common denominator all you have to do is look at the infiltration of Goldman Sachs executives into key parts of government over the last 2 decades. Rubin ,Jon Corzine, Hank Paulson ,Joshua Bolten,James Johnson (also former Fannie Mae).

---

What! Are you saying that our government has been infiltrated by people that only care about financial power, greed and not the welfare of the common citizen? Why tom, that is just crazy!

Mag I just report the facts . It is also a fact that there is an entrenched bureaucracy that is populated by people that often act counter to the plans of the administration in office .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Mag I just report the facts . It is also a fact that there is an entrenched bureaucracy that is populated by people that often act counter to the plans of the adminstration in office .

---

The plans of the administration in office? I'm just not prepared to believe that. You can say I have a narrow scope and I may agree, but, I think everything is going just swimmingly.